BUMS » WB 
 
 THE NEGRO: 
 
 WHAT IS HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS? 
 
 IS HE THE PROGENY OF HAM? IS HE A DESCENDANT OF 
 ADAM AND EVE ? HAS HE A SOUL ? OR IS HE A 
 BEAST IN GOD’S NOMENCLATURE? WHAT 
 IS HIS STATUS AS FIXED BY GOD IN 
 CREATION? WHAT IS HIS RELA¬ 
 TION TO THE WHITE RACE? 
 
 By ARIEL. 
 
 “ Truth, though sometimes slow in its power, is like itself, always consistent; and 
 like its AUTHOR, will always be triumphant. 
 
 The Bible is true.” 
 
 CINCINNATI: 
 
 'PUBLISHED FOR THE PROPRIETOR. 
 
 1867 . 
 
 (Copyright secured according to law.) 
 
 One-Tliird Discount to Booksellers and Newsdealers. 
 
ft (UjJkjlt 
 ,< Ct4 3 
 
 THE NEGRO: 
 
 WHAT IS HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS! 
 
 IS HE THE PROGENY OF HAM? IS HE A DESCENDANT OF 
 ADAM AND EVE? HAS HE A SOUL? OR IS HE A 
 BEAST IN GOD’S NOMENCLATURE? WHAT 
 IS HIS STATUS AS FIXED BY GOD IN 
 CREATION? WHAT IS HIS RELA¬ 
 TION TO THE WHITE RACE? 
 
 By ARIEL. 
 
 “ Truth, though sometimes slow in its power, is like itself, always consistent; and 
 like its AUTHOR, will always be triumphant. 
 
 The Bible is true.” 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 CINCINNATI: 
 
 PUBLISHED FOR THE PROPRIETOR. 
 
 1867. 
 
 (Copyright secured according to law.) 
 
 cv 
 
^XJi. H uJi S'au^ 7<p 3c Dccc<W~. r P^z-e. ' ^ ^ 0 HUGHfcS 
 
 3 z(* 
 
 P 9-9-yr 
 
 THE NEGRO. / iT : 
 
 - N < i - ^ 
 
 What is his Ethnological Status ? Is he the progeny of Earn ? 
 Is he a descendant of Adam and Eve ? Has he a Soul ? 
 or is he a Beast, in God's nomenclature ? What is his 
 Status as fixed by God in creation ? What is his relation 
 to the While race ? 
 
 The intelligent will see at once, that the question of slavery, 
 either right or wrong, is not involved in this caption for ex¬ 
 amination : nor is that question discussed. The points are 
 purely ethnological and Biblical, and are to be settled alone 
 by the Bible and by concurrent history, and by facts existing 
 outside of the Bible and of admitted truth. We simply say 
 in regard to ourself, in this day of partisan strife, religious 
 and political, that we take no part in any such party strife, 
 and that it is many years since we cast our last vote. This 
 much, to prevent evil surmises. 
 
 With this understood independence of all parties, we be¬ 
 gin by saying, that the errors and mistakes, in understand¬ 
 ing the true position of the negro, as God intended it to be 
 in his order of creation, are all traceable to, and arise out 
 of two assumptions. The learned men of the past and pres¬ 
 ent age, the clergy and others have assumed as true: 
 
 1. That the negro is a descendant of Ham, the youngest 
 son of Noah. This is false and untrue. 
 
 2. That the negro is a descendant of, or the progeny of, 
 Adam and Eve. This is also false and untrue. 
 
 These questions, or rather these assumptions, of the 
 learned and unlearned world, are Biblical, and are to be 
 settled by the Bible alone, whether they be true or false, and 
 by outside concurrent history—and of facts known to exist, 
 and admitted to be true by the intelligent, and as they may 
 serve to elucidate any statement or account given in the 
 Bible. 
 
 We shall have frequent use of the term, “logic of facts,” 
 and now explain what we mean by it. It is this: If one 
 sees another with a gun in his hands, and that he shoots a 
 man and kills him, and the bullet is found afterward in the 
 dead man’s body, that although we did not see the bullet 
 
 ( 3 ) 
 
4 
 
 THE NEGRO. 
 
 put into the gun, yet we know by this u logic of facts,” that 
 it was in the gun. It is the strongest evidence of what is 
 true, of any testimony that can be offered. 
 
 It will be admitted by all, and contradicted by none, that 
 we now have existing on earth, two races of men, the white 
 and the black . We beg here to remind our readers, that 
 when they see the word men, or man, italicised , we do not 
 use it as applying to Adam and his race. But we may 
 sometimes use these words in the general and accepted sense 
 of them, but it is only for the purpose of getting before the 
 minds of our readers, the propositions of the learned of this 
 age, exactly as they would wish them to be stated. We 
 will now describe, ethnologically, the prominent characteris¬ 
 tics and differences of these two races as we now find them. 
 
 The white race have long, straight hair, high foreheads, 
 high noses, thin lips, and white skins: the olive and sun¬ 
 burnt color, where the other characteristics are found, be¬ 
 long equally to the white race. 
 
 The negro or black race, are woolly or kinky-headed, low 
 foreheads, flat noses, thick-lipped, and have a black skin. 
 
 This description of the two races is (though not all their 
 differences), full enough for the fair discussion of their re¬ 
 spective stations in God’s order of creation, and will be ad¬ 
 mitted to be just and true, as far as it goes, by all candid 
 and learned men. Therefore the reader will observe, that 
 when either of the terms, white , black or negro , is used, re¬ 
 ferring to race, that we refer to the one or the other, as the 
 case may be, as is here set forth in describing the two races. 
 
 In God’s nomenclature of the creation, his order stands 
 thus: 1. Birds; 2. Fowls; 3. Creeping things ; 4. Cattle; 
 5. Beasts; 6. Adam and Eve. We shall use this, but with¬ 
 out any intended disparagement to any, as it is the best and 
 highest authority . 
 
 Before proceeding with the examination of the subjects 
 involved in the caption to this paper, we will for a moment, 
 notice the prevailing errors, now existing in all their strength, 
 and held by the clergy, and many learned men, to be true, 
 which are: 1. Ham’s name, which they allege, in Hebrew, 
 means black; 2. The curse denounced against him, that a 
 servant of servants should he be unto his brethren; and 
 that this curse, was denounced against Ham, for the acci¬ 
 dental seeing of his father Noah naked—that this curse was 
 to do so, and did change him, so that instead of being long, 
 straight-haired, high forehead, high nose, thin lips and white, 
 
IIIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC. 
 
 5 
 
 as lie then was, and like his brothers Shem and Japheth, he 
 was from that day forth, to be kinky-headed, low forehead, 
 thick lipped and black skinned; and that his name , and this 
 curse , effected all this. And truly, to answer their assump¬ 
 tions, it must have done so, or the case would not fit the 
 negro, as we now find him. And they adduce in proof, that^- 
 Ham’s name in Hebrew (tCHam), means black , the present 
 color of the negro, and that therefore Ham is the progenitor 
 of the black race. They seem to forget, or rather, they 
 ignore the fact, that the Bible nowhere says, that such a 
 curse, or that any curse whatever, was denounced against 
 Ham by his father Noah; but that this curse, with whatever 
 it carried with it, was hurled at Canaan, the youngest son 
 of Ham. But it is of little consequence, in the settlement 
 of these great questions, which was intended, whether Ham 
 or his youngest son Canaan. But if it be of any value in 
 supporting their theory, this meaning of Ham’s name in 
 Hebrew, in designating his color to be black, and black it 
 must be, to answer the color of the negro, then the names 
 of Shem and Japheth should be of equal value, in determin¬ 
 ing their color; for each of the brothers received their re¬ 
 spective names a hundred years or more before the flood, 
 and were all the children of the same father and same 
 mother. Now, if Shem and Japheth’s names do not describe 
 their color (which they do not), upon what principles of 
 logical philology or grammar, can Ham’s name determine 
 his color? How many of this day are there who are called, 
 black, white, brown, and olive, all of whom are white, and 
 without the slightest suspicion, that the name indicated the 
 color of their respective owners. Is it not strange, that in¬ 
 telligent and learned men, should be compelled to rely on 
 such puerilities, as arguments and truly supporting such 
 tremendous conclusions ? But they say it was his name in 
 conjunction with the curse, that made him and his descend¬ 
 ants the negro we now find on earth. It is an axiom in 
 logic, that, that which is not in the constituent, can not be 
 in the constituted. We have seen, that the making of Ham 
 a negro, is not in the name, which is one of the constituents, 
 now let us see, if it is in the other constituent, the curse. 
 Now the curse and name changed Ham, if their theory be 
 true, from a white man, to a black negro. If the curse, were 
 capable of effecting such results, it is to be found in the word 
 curse , and not in the words, that a servant of sorvants should 
 he be, as he and his descendants could, as readily be servants, 
 
6 
 
 THE NEGRO. 
 
 white as black, and he was already white, and no necessity 
 to make him black, to be a servant. If this effect on Ham , 
 •is to be found in the word curse , it will then be necessary, 
 for the advocates of the assumption, to show, that such were 
 its usual results, whenever that word was used; for unless 
 such were its common effects, when used by God himself, by 
 men of God, by patriarchs and by prophets, then we ask, on 
 what grounds, if any there be, it is, that they assert, that 
 it did produce this effect, in this instance , by Noah on Ham 
 and his descendants? We do not question or doubt, that 
 Canaan, was denounced in the curse, pronounced by Noah, 
 that he should be a servant of servants; but whether Ham 
 or Canaan alone is meant, is not material to the questions at 
 issue, except in this view; but the advocates of such being 
 its effect, must show, that such, at least was its effect pre¬ 
 vious to, and after Noah used it; and if they fail in this, 
 that necessarily, this part of their argument is also a total 
 failure. Let us look into the Bible. God cursed our first 
 parents. Did this curse kink their hair, flatten their skulls, 
 blacken their skin and flatten their nose ? If it did, then 
 Noah was sadly mistaken and these gentlemen too, in sup¬ 
 posing that it was Noah’s curse, that accomplished all this, 
 for it was already done for the whole race—and long before, 
 by God himself. God cursed the serpent. Did the curse 
 produce this effect on him ? He cursed Cain—did it affect 
 his skin, his hair, his forehead, his nose or his lips ? These 
 curses were all pronounced by God himself and produced no 
 such effects. But we proceed and take up the holy men of 
 God, the patriarchs and prophets, and see what their curses 
 produced. Did the curse of Jacob, produce this effect on 
 Simeon and Levi ? did it produce this effect on the man who 
 would make a graven image? did it produce this effect on 
 the man who would rebuild Jericho ? did it produce this effect 
 on those, who maketh the blind to wander out of the way ? 
 did it produce this effect on those, who perverteth the judg¬ 
 ment of the stranger, the fatherless and the widow ? Cum 
 multis aliis. It did not. But if it did produce this effect in 
 these cases, then when we read, that Christ died to redeem 
 us from the curse, are we to understand, that he died to re¬ 
 deem us from a kinky head, flat nose, thick lips and a black 
 skin? But such curses, never having produced such effects, 
 when pronounced by God, by patriarch, by prophet, or by 
 any holy man of God before or since, then we inquire to 
 know,* on what principles of interpretation, grammar or logic 
 
HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC, 
 
 7 
 
 it is, that it can so mean in this case of Noah ? There are no 
 words in the curse, that express, or even imply such effects. 
 Then in the absence of all such effects, following such curses, 
 and as they are narrated in the Bible, whether pronounced 
 by God or man; and there being nothing in the language 
 beside to sustain it, and if true, Ham’s posterity must be 
 shown now, as its truthful witnesses, from this, our day, 
 back to the flood or to Ham; and which can not be done— 
 and if this can not be done, then all arguments and asser¬ 
 tions, based on such assumptions, that Ham was the father 
 of the negro or black race, are false; and if false, then the 
 negro is in no sense , the descendant of Ham; and therefore, 
 he must have been in the ark, and as he was not one of 
 Noah’s family, that he must have entered it in some capacity, 
 or relation to the other beasts or cattle. For that he did 
 enter the ark is plain from the fact, that he is nowhere, and 
 not of the family or progeny of Ham. And no one has ever 
 suspicioned either Shem or Japheth of being the father of 
 the negro; therefore he must have come out of the ark, and 
 he could not come out, unless he had previously entered it; 
 and if he entered it, that he must have existed before the 
 flood, and that, too, just such negro as we have now, and 
 consequently not as a descendant of Adam and Eve; and if 
 not the progeny of Adam and Eve, that he is inevitably a 
 beast, and as such , entered the ark, though having the form 
 of man, and man he is, being so named by Adam. Such is 
 the logic, and such are the conclusions to which their prem¬ 
 ises lead, if legitimately carried out; and by which it is 
 plainly seen, that the position assumed by the learned of 
 the present and past ages—that the present negroes are 
 the descendants of Ham, and were made so by his name , 
 or by the curse of his father—is false in fact, and but an un¬ 
 warranted assumption at best. But while this conclusion 
 is inevitable, it also reveals to us another sad fact, that the 
 good men of our own race (the white), though learned and phi¬ 
 lanthropic, exhibit a weakness, alas ! too common in this our 
 day, that anything they wish to believe or think will be pop¬ 
 ular, that it is very easy to convert the greatest improba¬ 
 bilities into the best grounds of their faith . The word used 
 by God, used by patriarch and by prophet, is the same w'ord 
 used by Noah. If the word thus used by God, and by holy 
 men, did not produce the effect as is charged by these men, 
 how can the same word, when used by Noah, do it? And 
 yet, on these assumptions, the faith of more than half the 
 
8 
 
 THE NEGRO. 
 
 world seems to be now based. To expose these cobweb 
 fabrics, called by some reason, on this subject, and Christian 
 philanthropy by others, in which are involved, such tremen¬ 
 dous conclusions, for weal or for wo, of so large a portion 
 of the biped creation, that we feel like apologizing to our 
 readers, for answering such learned ignorance, blindness or 
 weakness. But the meaning of Ham’s name in Hebrew is 
 not primarily black. Its primary meaning is : 1. Sunburnt; 
 2. swarthy; 3. dark ; 4. black—and its most unusual mean- 
 ing. 
 
 Having now disposed of these fancies, for they are nothing 
 better, of the effects of Ham’s name, and Noah’s curse, in 
 making him a negro; and having examined them, for the pur¬ 
 pose of showing on what flimsy grounds this mightiest 
 of structures of air-built theories rests, and for this purpose 
 only , as what we have said about them is not connected with, 
 nor germain to the way we intend to pursue, in investigating 
 the questions forming the caption to this paper. But having 
 now disposed of them, we take up our own subject. The 
 reader will bear in mind the description we have given re¬ 
 spectively of the white and black races. 
 
 The first question to which we now invite attention is: Do 
 the characteristics which we have given of the white race, 
 belong equally, to all three of the sons of Noah—Shem, 
 Ham and Japheth, and their descendants ? If they do, then 
 the black race, belong to, and have since the flood at least, 
 belonged to another and totally different race of men . 
 
 Now to our question: Do the characteristics, which we 
 have given of the white race, belong equally to the three 
 sons of Noah and their descendants alike? We will begin 
 with Noah himself first. The Bible says of Noah, that he 
 was perfect in his generation. We will not stop to criticise 
 the Hebrew translated “ generation,” for any English scholar 
 on reading the verse in which it occurs, will see at once, that 
 to make sense, it should have been genealogy . Then Noah 
 was perfect in his genealogy—he was a preacher of right¬ 
 eousness—he was the husband of one wife, who was also 
 perfect in her genealogy; by this one wife, he had three sons, 
 all born about one hundred years before the flood, and all 
 three of them married, before the flood, to women who were 
 perfect also in their genealogies. Ordinarily speaking, this 
 little statement of facts, undenied by all, and undeniable, would 
 settle at least this question, that whatever the color of one 
 might be, the others would be the-same color—if one were 
 
IIIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC. 
 
 9 
 
 black, all would be black—if one were wjiite, all would be 
 white. Out of this arises the question, what was the color 
 of these three brothers—were they and their descendants 
 black or white ? 
 
 We will begin with Shem, so as to find his race now on 
 earth, to see if they are white or black. The Bible tells us 
 where he went, and where his descendants settled, and what 
 countries they occupied, until the days of our Saviour, who 
 was of Shem’s lineage after the flesh. From the days of the 
 Saviour down to the present day, we see the Jews, the de¬ 
 scendants of Shem, in every country, and see they belong to 
 the white race, which none will pretend to deny—that they 
 were so before, and after the flood, and have continued to 
 be so to the present time, is unquestionably true. We know 
 then, on Biblical authority, with mathematical certainty, that 
 they are not negroes, either before, at, nor since the flood, 
 but white. 
 
 We next take up Japheth. We know where he went, and 
 what countries his descendants peopled, with equal certainty 
 and on equal authority—and all outside concurrent history, 
 equally clearly prove, that Japheth’s descendants peopled 
 Europe, whence they have spread over all the world. That 
 they too belong to the white race, is also unquestioned, nor 
 doubted by any that have eyes to see. That they were so 
 before, and at the flood, and not negroes then, nor since, is 
 equally undoubted and indisputable. We have not taken the 
 trouble of showing step by step, where those two brothers 
 went, and what countries they peopled seriatim , because they 
 are admitted by all, learned and unlearned, to be and to have 
 done just what is here stated in spreading over the world. It 
 was, therefore, unnecessary to incumber this paper, by 
 proving that which none disputes. This being so, then two 
 of the three brothers, are known certainly, to be of the white 
 race, and not of the negro, either before or after the flood. 
 
 We now take up the youngest brother, Ham. The evi¬ 
 dence establishing the fact, that he too, and his descendants 
 belong to the white race, with long, straight hair, high fore¬ 
 head, high noses and thin lips, is if 'possible still stronger , 
 than that of either of his brothers; if indeed anything can, 
 in human conception, be stronger than that, which is cf per¬ 
 fect strength, and if this is true, then Ham can not be the 
 father of the negro. As in the cases of the other two 
 brothers, the Bible tells us where Ham, and his descendants 
 went, and what countries they peopled, and where his race 
 
10 
 
 THE NEGRO. 
 
 may be found at this day; and which likewise, all contempo¬ 
 raneous history abundantly testifies, and shows that they are 
 of the white race, and were so before the flood, and from the 
 flood continued so, and yet continue so to the present time ; 
 and that not one of them, is of the negro race of this day. 
 We will, in establishing the truths of the above declarations, 
 take up two of Ham’s sons and trace them and their descend¬ 
 ants, from the flood to the present time, and show what they 
 were, and what they are down to this day. These two sons 
 of Ham, whose posterity we propose to trace, and show that 
 they now belong to the w T hite race, are Mizraim and Canaan, 
 the second and the youngest of his sons. The families of all 
 of the sons can be traced from the flood to the present day, 
 but we presume two are sufficient, and that they be white; and 
 we have selected Canaan intentionally and for a purpose that 
 will be seen hereafter. Canaan was denounced by Noah, that 
 he should be a servant of servants to his brethren, and if it turns 
 out, in this investigation, as w r e knoiv it will, that they belong 
 to the ivhite race , it will satisfactorily settle this question, that 
 the curse of Noah did not make him and his descendants the 
 black negro we now find on earth, much less Ham, w'ho was 
 not so cursed. The'Bible plainly tells us, that the country 
 now called Egypt, was settled by Mizraim, the second son 
 of Ham, and was peopled by his descendants; that Mizraim, 
 the second son of Ham, and grandson of Noah, gave his 
 name to the country; that they called it the land of Miz¬ 
 raim, and by which name it is still known, to the present 
 day, by the descendants of its ancient inhabitants; that they 
 built many magnificent cities on the Nile—among them, the 
 city of Thebes, one of the largest and most magnificent in 
 its architecture, and the grandeur of its monuments and 
 temples, the world ever saw. Its ruins at the present day, 
 are of surpassing magnificence and grandeur. The city was 
 named Thebes, to commemorate the Ark, that saved Noah, 
 the grandfather of Mizraim, from the flood; the name of the 
 Ark in Hebrew, being Theba . Then we take it for granted, 
 all will admit, that what is now called Egypt, was settled by 
 Mizraim, the son of Ham, and grandson of Noah. The Bi¬ 
 ble, and outside concurrent history, abundantly prove that 
 he and his descendants, held, occupied and ruled over Egypt, 
 and continued in the possession and the occupancy of the 
 country as such, until long after the Exodus of the Hebrews, 
 under Moses and Aaron; that Ham’s descendants, through 
 Canaan, in the persons of his sons Sidon and Heth, settled 
 
Ills ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC* 
 
 11 
 
 Sidon, Tyre and Carthage. This will not be denied by any 
 intelligent Biblical student or historian. Sidon itself was 
 named after Canaan’s oldest son. 
 
 From Egypt in Africa, Mizraim’s descendants passed over 
 to Asia, and settled India, whence they spread over that 
 continent; that great commerce sprung up between India, 
 etc., and Egypt and connecting countries, which was carried 
 on by caravans; that Greece and Rome subsequently, shared 
 largely in this commerce, especially after the march of Alex¬ 
 ander the Great to India, by the caravan route, three hun¬ 
 dred and thirty-two years before our Saviour’s birth. This 
 commerce has continued to our day. All these facts are un¬ 
 deniable, and will be denied by none acquainted with the Bi¬ 
 ble and past history. These descendants, of this maligned 
 Ham, were at, and after the flood, and continue to be, to 
 this day , of the white race, all having long, straight hair, 
 high foreheads, high noses and thin lips; that they are so, 
 and as much so as the descendants of the other two brothers, 
 and possessing all of the same general lineaments—lineaments 
 that so long as the race shall exist, will be an eternal pro¬ 
 test against their being of the negro race that we now have. 
 But as we intend to show conclusively that Ham and his 
 descendants were and are white, long, straight hair, etc., 
 from Noah to the present time, so plainly and so positively 
 that no fair or candid man can have the least doubt of its 
 truth, we proceed to state: That we will now give the names 
 of the country, now called Egypt, beginning with its first 
 settlement by Mizraim, in regular order down, to enable the 
 Biblical and historical student to refer readily to the his¬ 
 tories of the different epochs, to detect any error, if we 
 should make one, in tracing Ham’s descendants, down to the 
 present day. In Hebrew it is called Mizraim, in Coptic and 
 Arabic (the former being now the name of its ancient or first 
 inhabitants), it is called Misr or Mezr, being spelled in both 
 these ways by the Arabian and Coptic writers. In Syro-Chal- 
 daic and Helenic Greek it is called Aiguptos—and in Latin, 
 iEgyptus. In many of the ancient Egyptian and Coptic writ¬ 
 ings it is called Chimi , that is, the land of Ham, and is so called 
 in the Bible, see Psalms cv, 23; cvi, 22, and other places. The 
 ancient inhabitants now in Egypt, the Copts, are called the 
 posterity of Pharaoh , by the Turks of the present day ., The 
 ancient Hyksos , or shepherd kings (patriarchs) of the He¬ 
 brews, are sometimes confounded in ancient history, with the 
 descendants of Ham, being of the same original stock. 
 
12 
 
 THE NEGRO. 
 
 Egypt has not had a ruler of its own since the battle of Ac- 
 tium, fought by Augustus Caesar, thirty years before our 
 Saviour, as God by his prophet had foretold that their own 
 kings would cease forever to reign over that country. After 
 the battle of Actium,it became a Roman province, and since 
 that time, it has been under foreign rule. It now is, and 
 has been governed by the Turks since 1517. 
 
 It appears (see Asiatic Miscel., p. 148, 4to), that Mizraim, 
 the son of Ham, and his sons (descendants), after settling 
 Egypt, a portion went to Asia, which w T as settled by them, 
 and that they gave their names to the different parts of the 
 country where they settled, and which they retain yet. The 
 names of these sons of Mizraim as given in history are as 
 follows*. Hind, Sind, Zeng, Nuba, Kanaan, Kush, Kopt, 
 Berber and Hebesh, or Abash. From these children of Ham, 
 we not only readily trace the present names of the countries, 
 but that of the people also to this day; that they founded 
 the nations of the Indus, Hindoos, Nubians, Koptos, Zanze- 
 bar, Barbary, Abysinia, the present Turks, is unquestioned 
 and undoubted, by any intelligent scholar. That they are 
 the white race, with long, straight hair, etc., is equally unques¬ 
 tionable, and are so this day , and as positively as that Shem 
 and Japheth’s descendants are now white. They first com¬ 
 menced to settle on the Nile in Africa, they then passed 
 into Asia; and these two continents were principally settled 
 by them. A portion of Europe (Turkey) is occupied by 
 them—these, too, have long, straight hair, etc. 
 
 A portion of Ham’s descendants, through Canaan’s sons, 
 Sidon and Heth, settled Sidon, Tyre, and later, Carthage. 
 Tyre became a great power, and a city of much wealth and 
 commerce, as we learn by the Bible and other history. Tyre 
 was eventually overthrown, and her Queen and people fled. 
 They subsequently built the great city of Carthage, near to 
 where Tunis, in Africa, is now situated. They were again 
 overthrown and their city destroyed by Scipio Africanus 
 Secundus, after the battle of Zama. But, during one of the 
 sieges, the city being invested by the Romans, the people 
 became hard pressed for provisions, to supply which, they 
 resolved on building some ships, to run the blockade for pro¬ 
 visions. But after their ships were built, they had no ropes 
 to rig them, nor anything within the city to make them. In 
 this dilemma, the ladies, the women of Carthage, to their eter¬ 
 nal honor be it spoken, patriotically stepped forward, and 
 tendered their hair, their long and beautiful tresses , to make 
 
HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC. 
 
 13 
 
 the much needed ropes, which was accepted, and a supply of 
 provisions obtained. Now how many , and what sort of ropes 
 would the kinky-headed negro have furnished, had the in¬ 
 habitants been negroes ? This noble act of the women of 
 Carthage, is mentioned to their honor, by Babylonian, Per¬ 
 sian, Egyptian, Grecian, Roman and Carthagenian writers 
 and historians; and yet, we have seen it stated, and stated 
 by learned modern writers, and who ought to have known 
 better, that Hannibal, Hamilcar, Asdrubal, etc., the great 
 Carthagenian Generals, were kinky-headed negroes—that 
 Carthage itself, was a negro city. Why, the annals of fame 
 do not present such an array of great names, whether in 
 arts and sciences, and all that serves to elevate and make 
 man noble on earth, or in the senate, or the field, by any 
 other race of people, as will compare with those of Ham’s 
 descendants. These Carthagenians were all long and straight 
 haired people. After the fall of Carthage, in the last Punic 
 War, many of its people passed over subsequently into Spain, 
 which they held and occupied for centuries, and are known 
 in history as Saracens. A part of Spain, they held and oc¬ 
 cupied, until the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, when they 
 were expelled. These, too, had long and straight hair, etc. 
 But to return to that portion of Ham’s descendants through 
 Mizraim. These settled Egypt, India, China, and most all 
 of Oriental Asia, w T here they have continued to live , and 
 where they yet live , and not one of them is a negro. They 
 all have long, straight hair, etc., peculiar only to the white 
 race. Not one negro belongs • to their race . That this is 
 their history, none will deny. 
 
 Ham, the maligned and slandered Ham—Ham who is 
 falsely charged as being the father of the negro—Ham, the 
 son of the white man Noah—this Ham, and his descendants, 
 the long and straight haired race, it appears from history— 
 from unquestioned history— governed and ruled the world from 
 the earliest ages after the flood and for many centuries—and 
 gave to it, all the arts and sciences, manufactures and com¬ 
 merce, geometry, astronomy, geography, architecture, let¬ 
 ters, painting, music, etc., etc.—and that they thus governed 
 the world, as it were, from the flood, until they came in con¬ 
 tact with the Roman people, and then their power was broken 
 in a contest for the mastery of the world, at Carthage, one 
 hundred and forty-seven years before A. D., and Carthage 
 fell—but fell, not for lack of talents in her people, not for 
 lack of orators, statesmen and generals of the most consum- 
 
14 
 
 THE NEGKG. 
 
 mate abilities, but became God had long before determined, 
 that the Japhethic race should govern the world; and the 
 Roman people were Japheth’s children. When Hannibal, 
 the most consummate general the world ever saw to his day, 
 fought the battle of Zama, he met a fate similar to that which 
 befel another equally consummate commander at a later day, 
 on the field of Waterloo—both became exiles. That Ham’s 
 talents, abilities, genius, power, grandeur, glory, should now 
 be attempted to be stolen , and to be stolen, not by the negro, 
 for he has neither genius or capacity for such a theft, but 
 stolen by the learned men of this and the past ages, and 
 thrust upon the negro, who has not capacity to understand, 
 when, where, or how, he had ever performed such feats of 
 legislation, statesmanship, government, arts of war and in 
 science. The negro has been upon the earth, coeval with 
 the white race. We defy any historian, any learned man, to 
 put his finger on the history , the page , or even paragraph of 
 history, showing he has ever done one of these things, thus 
 done by the children of Ham; or that he has shown, in this 
 long range of time, a capacity for self-government, such as 
 Ham, Shem and Japheth. If he has done anything on earth, 
 in any age of the world, since he has been here, as has been 
 done by the three sons of Noah, in arts and sciences, gov¬ 
 ernment, etc., it surely can be shown; and shown equally as 
 clear and unequivocally , when and where he did it , as that of 
 Shem, Ham and Japheth can. But such a showing can never 
 be made; that page of history has never yet been written 
 that records it. On these subjects, his history is as blank 
 as that of the horse or the beaver. But we are not yet done 
 with Ham’s descendants. The great Turko-Tartar generals, 
 Timour, Ghenghis Kahn and Tamerlane, the latter called in 
 history, the scourge of God—the Saracenic general, the gal¬ 
 lant, the daring, the chivalrous, the noble Saladin, he who led 
 the Paynim forces of Mahomet, against the lion-hearted Rich¬ 
 ard, in the war of the Crusades, all, all these were children of 
 Ham. Mahomet himself, the founder of an empire, and the 
 head of a new religion, made his kingdom of Ham’s descen¬ 
 dants, as all Turks are: and these all have straight, long 
 hair, etc. Those who have read the various histories of the 
 crusades of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, know that 
 the Turkish forces then, had long, straight hair, etc., and 
 that it is so yet with their descendants none doubt—and 
 these were children of Ham. 
 
 It will be seen now, how we have taken up one of Ham’s 
 
HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC. 
 
 15 
 
 sons; that we have traced him and his descendants from the 
 flood to Egypt, wher^ they are still; that we have traced 
 them across the continent of Africa into Asia, settling coun¬ 
 tries as they went; and to the countries still bearing their 
 names, where they settled, and where they are yet; that we 
 have taken up another son, and traced him and his descend¬ 
 ants to Sidon, Tyre, Carthage, and Spain, and shown that 
 they, too, without exception , were long, straight haired, high 
 foreheads, high noses, thin lips, and belong to the white race. 
 Not a kinky-headed negro among them. We have shown 
 that Ham’s descendants have led and governed the world, 
 for twenty-three centuries after the flood to the battle of 
 Actium ; that they gave it, also, the arts and sciences, manu¬ 
 factures and commerce, etc., etc. There is one discovery, 
 one dye, as old as Tyre itself, and yet eminently noted—the 
 Tyrian Purple — consecrated exclusively to imperial use. 
 Imperial purple is the synonym of a king, in ancient and 
 modern history; that we have found these children of the 
 slandered Ham, and have traced them step by step, as it 
 were, from country to country, from the days of the flood 
 down to the present day; that wherever we found them, and 
 whenever found, in any day, of any century from Noah down 
 to this day, we have found them white, and of the white race 
 only . And we now challenge the production of a single his¬ 
 tory, or a single paragraph of history, showing one nation— 
 one single nation or kingdom —of kinky-headed, flat-nosed, 
 thick-lipped and black-skinned negroes, that made such dis¬ 
 coveries in arts aud sciences, built such cities, had such 
 rulers, kings, and legislators, such generals, such commerce, 
 and such manufactures, as Mizraim’s people on the Nile, or 
 as Ham’s children in Tyre, in Carthage, in Spain, show that 
 they had—we defy its production. But we are not yet done 
 with our proofs about Ham and his descendants being white. 
 
 It seems as if God, foreseeing the slander that would, in 
 after ages, be put, or attempted to be put, on his son Ilam , 
 by ignorant or designing men attempting to show that he 
 was the progenitor of the negro race, directed Mizraim, the 
 second son of Ham, by an interposition of his power and 
 providence, or by direct inspiration, to put awav his dead, 
 by a process of embalming, the details of which, for the ac¬ 
 complishment of the object, can be regarded as little, if any¬ 
 thing, short of being miraculous ; and by which, we can now 
 lpok into the faces of the children of Mizraim, male and 
 female, even at this day, in succeeding generations* and from 
 
16 
 
 THE NEGRO. 
 
 the flood; and which can not be done with the children of 
 Shem and Japheth, about whose identity with the white 
 race no controversy has ever existed. It was this fact that 
 caused us to say, that the testimony establishing Ham J s 
 identity, as belonging to the white race, was stronger , if pos¬ 
 sible, than that of either of his brothers. God foreseeing, as 
 we have said, this atrocious slander, that would be put on 
 Ham and his posterity, so directed Mizraim, and at onco 
 inspired his mind, that from the first, he appeared to be 
 fully acquainted with all the necessary ingredients, and how 
 to use them, and in what proportions, and how many days 
 were to be consumed to perfect the corpse, that it would be 
 incorruptible, and thereby become and be forever a testi¬ 
 mony of God for Ham, that should speak to the eyes and 
 senses of all men, in after ages, and proclaiming as they do, 
 to this day, and from the very time of the flood, and through 
 each successive generation from the flood, that their ancestor, 
 Ham, and they, his descendants, were like the children of 
 the other brothers, their equal, in all the lineaments that 
 stamp the race of Adam with the image and likeness of the 
 Almighty, and belonging to the white race. That these 
 mummied witnesses of Ham, his dead children, speaking 
 from the tombs of ages for their father, and proclaiming from 
 the days of the flood as they do, by each succeeding genera¬ 
 tion of his buried ones, down to the present day, and pro¬ 
 testing by their long, straight hair, by their high foreheads, 
 by their high noses, and by their thin lips, now hushed in 
 silence forever, that the slander, that their father was the 
 progenitor of the negro, was a slander most foul —a slander 
 most infamous . Well might their indignant bodies be so 
 aroused—well might Ham’s children, who have been slum¬ 
 bering for centuries, be so electrified by these foul asper¬ 
 sions, as to burst their sarcophagii, and'tear the cerements 
 of the grave, and this foul calumny, from their faces at one 
 and the same time and forever. It looks as if God intended , 
 by this overruling or inspiring of Mizraim, so to embalm his 
 dead, to teach us a lesson, that there was an importance, in 
 being of the white race, to be attached to it, of grander pro¬ 
 portions, and of nobler value, than any earthly, filial or pater¬ 
 nal affections that could be symbolized by it. Millions of 
 these mummied bodies have been exhumed this century, but 
 not one negro has been found among them. What does this 
 teach? What value do you place on this testimony pre¬ 
 pared and ordained by God himself, as his testimony to the 
 
IITS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC. 
 
 17 
 
 worth of the lohite race ? The writer of this has seen many 
 of these mummies, but never a negro. He has assisted in 
 unrolling some, and all had straight, long hair. It was his 
 fortune, as it happened, to assist in unrolling the body of 
 one possessing peculiar interest. From the hieroglyphic 
 inscription on the sarcophagus, it proved to be the body of 
 a young lady, who died in her seventeenth year, that she 
 was the daughter of the High Priest of On (the temple of 
 On was situated six miles northeast from the present Cairo), 
 and that she was an attendant of the princesses of the court 
 of KingThothmes3d. This king is recognized and believed to 
 be that Pharoah under whom Moses and Aaron brought out 
 the children of Israel from Egypt. This mummy we assisted 
 in unrolling. The inner wrapping next to the skin was of 
 what we now call fine linen cambric. When this was re¬ 
 moved, the hair on the head looked as though it had but 
 recently been done up. It was in hundreds of very small 
 plaits, three-ply, and each from a yard to a yard and a quar¬ 
 ter long; and although she had then been buried 3,338 years, her 
 hair had the apparent freshness as if she had been dead 
 only a few days or weeks. The face, ears, neck and bosom 
 were guilded; and so were her hands to above the wrists, 
 and her feet to above the ankles. Such had been the perfect 
 manner of her embalmment, that the flesh retained its round¬ 
 ness and fullness remarkably, with fine teeth, beautiful mouth, 
 and every mark by which we could, at this day, recognize 
 her as a beautiful lady of the white race. Without dispar¬ 
 agement to our fair country-women, we can say, that a more 
 beautiful hand, foot and ankle, we never beheld. 
 
 Now, what have we proven by this recitement of Bible 
 history—of that of contemporaneous and concurrent history 
 outside of the Bible—of facts, facts now existing in the 
 mummied remains of Ham’s descendants, commencing with 
 Mizraim and coming down through centuries since the flood 
 —of the yet living nations , comprised unquestionably of his 
 descendants, and who, like the descendants of Shem and 
 Japheth, have the distinctive marks of the white race alone , 
 and as clear as either Shem or Japheth, and that, too, as 
 they exist now on earth , and running back as such from this 
 our day to Noah; and as distinct from the negro race as 
 that race is now distinct from the children of Japheth ? Of 
 that miraculous intervention of divine power, in causing 
 Mizraim so to embalm his children, that they should speak 
 from the grave, in attestation of their being of the white, 
 
18 
 
 THE NEGRO. 
 
 and not of the negro, race. Why did God require that only 
 the children of Ham should be embalmed, of all then on 
 earth? No other nation, as such, then or since , embalmed 
 their dead. Why was it, that the children of Ham alone did 
 this ? Except but for the reason that God, foreseeing the 
 disputes to arise about the negro, and that Ham would be 
 slandered and held to be the progenitor of the negro; that, 
 therefore, in vindication of him, as belonging to the white 
 race, and as an immortal being, and not of the beasts that per¬ 
 ish, God caused these descendants of Ham to embalm their 
 dead, and to continue doing so for many centuries. No other 
 valid reason can be assigned, why these people of Mizraim, 
 alone of all the nations of the earth, did so. There may have 
 been, and doubtless there were, many reasons with the people, 
 of a private and personal character, inciting them to do so; 
 but this was God's reason , and he chose these personal con¬ 
 siderations of the people, as his means of accomplishing it. 
 
 We have shown conclusively: 1. That Ham’s descend¬ 
 ants now on earth, in Egypt, in India, all over Asia, a por¬ 
 tion of Africa and Europe respectively, have, this day , long, 
 straight hair, high foreheads, high noses and thin lips—that 
 they have ever been so; this, all history in the Bible, and all 
 history outside of the Bible, fully attest. 2. While, on the 
 other hand, all history tells us (when it says anything about 
 them), that the negro race is kinky-headed, low forehead, flat 
 nose, thick lip and black skin; that he has always been so, 
 and the negro of this day attests that he is so yet; and that, 
 consequently, he is in no way related to Ham, even by a 
 curse , for he is black, and Ham is white. 3. That the de¬ 
 scendants of Shem and Japheth are white, and have always 
 been white, none dispute. 4. That, having established, then, 
 that Shem, Ham and Japheth were perfect in their genealo¬ 
 gies from Adam and Eve ; that they were the children of 
 one father and one mother; that they were born about a 
 hundred years before the flood; that their wives, like them¬ 
 selves, were perfect in their genealogies ; that these brothers 
 and their descendants, as regards their genealogy, were the 
 perfect equals of each other; that the curse of Noah, even 
 if directed against Ham, and which it is not, that it is im¬ 
 possible that that curse could, in any way, make him the • 
 father or progenitor of the present negroes—as no curse de¬ 
 nounced by God himself, by patriarch or by prophet, had 
 ever done so before or since, and there is nothing in the 
 language used by Noah that covers that idea; that, on the 
 
HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC. 
 
 19 
 
 contrary, the exact word used by Noah, had been before used 
 by God and by patriarchs, without the slightest suspicion 
 being excited that such was its effect on the person so 
 cursed; that it was not found in Ham’s name, and that the 
 effort to connect the color of the negro with the meaning of 
 Ham’s name in Hebrew, is a mer q fancy, not of the strength 
 even of a cobweb. Now, reader, are these things true ? 
 Look into your Bible—look into contemporaneous and con¬ 
 current history—look at existing facts outside of the Bible, 
 and running from the flood down to the present day, and 
 hear the prophet of God defiantly ask, Can the Ethiopian 
 change his skin, or the leopard his spots ?—both beasts ; and 
 when you have so looked, you will say, true , every word, 
 indubitably true ! Then, what ? One word more, before we 
 proceed further. The embalming of Ham’s dead and the 
 Jewish genealogical tables ceased at about the same time, 
 and by God’s interposing power. Each were permitted by 
 God to continue as national records —the one to show the 
 genealogy of Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah, the other 
 to show that Ham was white , and not the progenitor of the 
 negro; and each having accomplished the end designed, 
 God permitted them to cease, and both ceased about the same 
 time. Is not this embalming, then, in effect, the direct testi¬ 
 mony of God himself, that Ham and his children were of the 
 white race, and that there is an importance in being of the 
 white race , and which we will see by and by, and beyond any 
 appreciation ever given to it heretofore ? And is it not equally 
 God’s testimony, ipso facto, that the negro race have always 
 existed as we have it now, and as have those of the three 
 brothers equally always existed, and as we have them now ? 
 
 But, reader, suppose we admit, for the sake of the argu¬ 
 ment, that Ham was black, and that he was made so by the 
 curse of his father Noah—we say, suppose we were to admit 
 this, then what follows? Ham would have been just such a 
 negro as we now find on earth—admitted; but then he would 
 have been the only negro on earth. Where was his negro 
 wife to be had? He could not propagate the negro race, by 
 a cross with the white woman; for that would have produced 
 a mulatto , and not the negro, such as we now have. To propa¬ 
 gate the negro that we now have on earth, the man and 
 the woman must both be negroes. Now, where did Ham’s 
 negro wife come from? She did not come out of the ark? 
 She was not on earth? Do we not see clearly from this 
 statement of facts, that the assumption of the learned world, 
 
20 
 
 TITE NEGRO. 
 
 even admitting it, destroys itself the moment that we bring 
 it to the test of facts. Under no view of their assumptions 
 can the negro we now have on earth be accounted for. 
 
 These things being so, now what? We proceed with our 
 subject. It being shown to be incontestibly true, that the 
 three brothers, Shem, Ham and Japheth, when they came out 
 of the ark, were each of the white race, and that they have 
 continued so to the present day in their posterity—this is in- 
 contestible, and being true, it settles the question , that Ham 
 is not the progenitor of the negro , and we must now look to 
 some other quarter for the negro’s origin. As the negro is 
 not the progeny of Ham, as has been demonstrated, and 
 knowing that he is of neither family of Shem or Japheth, 
 who are white, straight haired, etc., and the negro we have 
 now on earth, is kinky-headed and black, by this logic of 
 facts we know , that he came out of the ark , and is a totally 
 different race of men from the three brothers. How did he 
 get in there, and in what station or capacity? We answer, 
 that he went into the ark by command of God; and as he 
 was neither Noah, nor one of his sons, all of whom were 
 white, then, by the logic of facts, he could only enter it as a 
 beast , and along with the beasts. This logic of facts will not 
 allow this position to be questioned. But we will state it in 
 another way equally true, from which the same result must 
 necessarily follow, that the negro entered the ark only as a 
 beast. All candid or uncandid men will admit that the ne¬ 
 gro of the present day , have kinky heads, fiat nose, thick 
 lip and black skin, and which we have shown is not true of 
 either Shem, Ham or Japheth’s progeny of this day , and con¬ 
 sequently it is impossible that either of them could be, or 
 could have been, the progenitor of the negro, at or since the 
 flood, for each race exists now, the one white and the other 
 black; and then, as it is impossible to believe that the negro 
 was created at or since the flood, therefore, he must 
 have been in the ark. This being so, now iet us see what God 
 said to Noah in proof of this position. He told Noah that 
 he intended to destroy the world by a flood, but that he in¬ 
 tended to save him and his wife, and his three sons and their 
 wives. These were all God intended to save , for they had 
 souls and beasts have not. God told him he must prepare an 
 ark, into which besides his family, he must also take of every 
 beast after his kind, and all cattle after their kind, and of 
 every creeping thing that creepeth on the earth, and every 
 fowl after his kind, and every bird after his sort, and food for 
 
HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC. 
 
 21 
 
 their support. Thus did Noah, and thus by God’s command 
 he entered the Ark with his family. God promised Noah to 
 save him and his family—but God did not promise to save 
 the beasts , etc., although he preserved them in the ark; but, 
 besides this preservation , Noah and his family were to be 
 saved —why, we will see presently. Then, Ham, not being the 
 father of the negro, the negro must have come out of the 
 ark with the beasts, and as one , for he was not one of Noah's 
 family that entered it. This is inevitable, and can not be 
 shaken by all the reasonings of men on earth to the con¬ 
 trary. Now, unless it can be shown that, from Noah back to 
 Adam and Eve, that in some way this kinky-headed and 
 black-skinned negro is the progeny of Adam and Eve, and 
 which we know can not be done, then again it follows, indu¬ 
 bitably, that the negro is not a human being—not being of 
 Adam’s race. This point we will now examine and settle, 
 and then account for the negro being here. 
 
 Noah was the tenth in generation from Adam and Eve. 
 We have before shown that the descendants of Shem, Ham 
 and Japheth, at this day, are white—have been so from the 
 flood, with long, straight hair, etc. This fact establishes 
 another fact, viz: that Noah was also white, with long, straight 
 hair, etc. The Bible tells us that Noah was perfect in his 
 genealogy, and the tenth in descent from Adam and Eve; 
 that, consequently, Adam and Eve were white—with long, 
 straight hair, high foreheads, high noses and thin lips. Our 
 Saviour was also white, and his genealogy is traced, family 
 by family, back to Adam and Eve—which again establishes 
 the fact that Adam and Eve were white. We have also 
 shown that the negro did not descend from either of the sons 
 of Noah. That he is now here on earth, none will deny; and 
 being here now, this logic of facts proves that he was in the 
 ark, and came out of the ark after the flood; and that it in¬ 
 dubitably 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 kin¬ 
 ky head, flat nose, black skin, etc.; and that, Noah and his 
 wife being white, and perfect in their genealogy, it es¬ 
 tablishes 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 
 
22 
 
 THE NEGRO. 
 
 any possibility be, either of them, the progenitor of the ne¬ 
 gro, 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 be¬ 
 fore them, and if on the earth before Adam, that he is inev¬ 
 itably a beast, and as a beast, entered the ark. Let us re¬ 
 capitulate our points. We have shown that the assumption 
 of the learned world, that Ham is the progenitor of the ne¬ 
 gro, 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 be¬ 
 longs 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 philo¬ 
 sophic 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 
 
23 
 
 IIIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC. 
 
 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 ad¬ 
 vancing 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 imi¬ 
 tate his sounds. This is the foundation of language. The 
 gorilla, orang-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 wo¬ 
 men and girls, and carry them oft* 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 con¬ 
 sists of change of color, hair, forehead, nose, lips, etc., and im¬ 
 mortality. 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 be¬ 
 fore 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 like¬ 
 ness, and let him, so created now, have dominion. God so 
 
24 
 
 TOE NEGRO. 
 
 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 neces¬ 
 sity , 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 wa¬ 
 ters, he called seas ; and the firmament he called heaven, etc. 
 And what was to be under Adam’s dominion, rule and con¬ 
 trol, Adam named himself, but by God’s direction and author¬ 
 ity. 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 Gods dominion, starting with 
 Adam, went upward. God, foreseeing that Adam w r ould 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 do 
 minion , 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 de- 
 
HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC. 
 
 25 
 
 etruction, 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 con¬ 
 summated 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 be¬ 
 cause 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 
 
26 
 
 THE NEGRO. 
 
 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 char¬ 
 acteristics 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 quota¬ 
 tion 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 cre¬ 
 ated. 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, 
 
IIIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC. 
 
 27 
 
 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 ally¬ 
 ing themselves with the beasts of the earth. These daugh- 
 ters 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 other¬ 
 wise in obeying it. But God did object to their taking wives 
 of these daughters of men . Then it is plain that these daugh¬ 
 ters 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 mul¬ 
 tiply. But our Saviour settles these points beyond any doubt, 
 when he taught his disciples howto pray—to say, Our Father, 
 who art in heaven. His disciples were w T hite, 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 descend¬ 
 ants who are here called the sons of God , and that these daugh¬ 
 ters 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, propi¬ 
 tiated; 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 mis¬ 
 cegenation of the white race with that of the black—mere beasts 
 of the earth . We can now form an opinion of the awful na¬ 
 ture of this crime, in the eyes of God, when we know that he 
 destroyed the world by a flood, on account of its perpetra- 
 
28 
 
 THE NEGRO. 
 
 tion. But it is probable that we should not, in this our day, 
 have been so long in the dark in regard to the sin, the par¬ 
 ticular sin, that brought the flood upon the earth, had not our 
 translators rejected the rendering of some of the oldest man¬ 
 uscripts—the Chaldean, Ethiopic, Arabic, et al. —of the Jew¬ 
 ish 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 authen¬ 
 ticity 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 ver¬ 
 sion. 
 
 It will be admitted by all Biblical scholars, and doubted 
 by none, that immediately after the fall of Adam in the gar¬ 
 den 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, w r ho 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 par¬ 
 ticular time , immediately after the birth of Enos, as the 
 period w T hen 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 w T hen he named the other beasts and 
 cattle. This can not be questioned. Any other view would 
 
Ills ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC. 29 
 
 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 ante¬ 
 cedents controlling the proper rendering, will be readily ad¬ 
 mitted 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 at. 
 The Jews translate it thus: “Then men began to profane 
 the name of the Lord.” 
 
 But we have this singular expression in the Bible, occur¬ 
 ring 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 expres¬ 
 sions, 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 ex¬ 
 ist, ex consequentia, as long as God exists. God can not hate 
 any part of himself, for that would be perfection hating per¬ 
 fection, and Adam did partake of the divine nature to some 
 
30 
 
 THE NEGRO. 
 
 extent; and therefore the man here referred to could not hav' 
 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 obla¬ 
 tion, and can not be forgiven by God— never has been for¬ 
 given on earth, and never will be. Death—death inexorable, 
 is declared by God’s judgments on the world and on nations ; 
 and he has declared death as its punishment by his law— 
 death to both male and female, without pardon or reprieve, 
 and beyond the power of any sacrifice to expiate. 
 
 That Adam was especially endowed by his Creator, and by 
 him commissioned with authority to rule and have dominion 
 over everything created on earth, is unquestioned ; that to 
 mark the extent of his dominion, everything named by him 
 was included in his right to rule them. His wife was the 
 last thing named by him, and consequently under his rule, 
 
HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC. 
 
 31 
 
 government and dominion. But a being called man existed 
 before Adam was created, and was named man by Adam, 
 and was to be under his rule and dominion, as all other 
 beasts and animals. But did God call Adam man , after he 
 had created him ? Most certainly he did not. This fact re¬ 
 lieves us of all doubt as to who was meant as the men of 
 whose daughters the sons of God took their wives, inde¬ 
 pendent of the preceding irrefragible proofs, that it was the 
 negro; and the crime of amalgamation thus committed, 
 brought the flood upon the earth. There is no possibility 
 of avoiding this conviction. 
 
 But this will be fully sustained as we advance. Cush was 
 Ham’s oldest son, and the father of Nimrod. It appears from 
 the Bible, that this Nimrod was not entirely cured, by the 
 flood, of this antediluvian love for and miscegenation with ne¬ 
 groes. Nimrod was the first on earth who began to monop¬ 
 olize power and play the despot: its objects we will see pres¬ 
 ently. Kingly 'power had its origin in love for and associa¬ 
 tion with the negro. Beware! Nimrod’s hunting was not 
 only of wild animals, but also of men —the negro—to subdue 
 them under his power and dominion; and for the purposes 
 of rebellion against God, and in defiance of his power and 
 judgment in destroying the world, and for the same sin . This 
 view of Nimrod as a mighty hunter, will be sustained, not 
 only by the facts narrated in our Bible, of what he did, but 
 to the mind of every Hebrew scholar, it will appear doubly 
 strong by the sense of the original. We see that God, by his 
 prophets, gives the name hunter to all tyrants , with manifest 
 reference to Nimrod as its originator. In the Latin Vulgate, 
 Ezekiel xxxii: 30, plainly shows it. It was Nimrod that 
 directed and managed—ruled, if you please—the great mul¬ 
 titude that assembled on the Plain of Shinar. This multitude, 
 thus assembled by his arbitrary power, and other inducements, 
 we shall see presently, were mostly negroes ; and with them 
 he undertook the building of the tower of Babel—a building 
 vainly intended, by him and them, should reach heaven, and 
 thereby they would escape such a flood as had so recently de¬ 
 stroyed the earth; and for the same sin. Else why build 
 such a tower ? They knew the sin that had caused the flood, 
 for Noah was yet living; and unless they were again com¬ 
 mitting the same offense, there would be no necessity for such 
 a tower. That the great multitude, gathered thus by Nimrod, 
 were mostly negroes, appears from the facts stated in the 
 Bible. God told Noah, after the flood, to subdue the earth, 
 
32 
 
 TIIE NEGRO. 
 
 “for all beasts, cattle,” etc., “are delivered into tliy 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 be¬ 
 ing the head, of the beasts, cattle, etc., then their populating 
 power would be in proportion to the whites—as seven is to 
 three, or as fourteen is to six; and Nimrod must have re¬ 
 sorted 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 Nim- 
 rod’s immediate relations; and from the Bible account where 
 they did go to, it is evident that they did not go with Nimrod 
 to Shinar. This logic of facts, therefore, proves that they 
 were negroes, and explains why Nimrod is called the mighty 
 hunter before, or against the Lord, as it should have been 
 translated in this place. David stood before Goliah, but evi¬ 
 dently against him. The whole tenor of the Bible account 
 shows these views to be correct, whether the negro entered 
 the ark by sevens or only a pair. For, when we read further, 
 that they now were all of one speech and one language, they 
 proposed, besides the tower, to build them a city, where their 
 power could be concentrated ; and if this were accomplished, 
 and they kept together, and acting in concert , under such a 
 man as the Bible shows Nimrod to have been, it would be 
 impossible for Noah’s descendants to subdue the earth, as 
 God had charged they should do. It was, therefore, to pre¬ 
 vent this concentration of power and numbers, that God con¬ 
 founded their language, broke them into bands, overthrew 
 their tower, stopped the building of their city, and scattered 
 or dispersed them over the earth. 
 
 Let us now ask : Was not their tower an intended offense 
 to, and defiance of, God? Most certainly. If not, why did 
 God destroy it ? Did God ever, before or after , destroy any 
 other tower of the many built about this time, or in any sub¬ 
 sequent age of the world, made by any other people? No. 
 Why did he not destroy the towers, obelisks and pyramids, 
 built by Mizraim and his descendants, on the banks of the 
 Nile? And why prevent them from building a city, but for 
 the purpose of destroying concentrated power, to the injury 
 of Noah’s children, and their right from God to rule the earth? 
 The Bible nowhere tells us where any of the beasts of 
 earth went at any time : hence, the negro being one, it says 
 not one word about where any of them went. But we are at 
 no loss to find them, when we know their habits. The negro, 
 
IITS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC. 
 
 58 
 
 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 nar¬ 
 rated in the Bible, of what was said and done , go to show 
 that the positions here assumed, warrant the correctness of 
 the conclusion that the main body of these people were ne¬ 
 groes, subdued by and under the rule and direction of Nim¬ 
 rod ; that the language used by them, why they would build 
 them a tower, shows they were daily practicing the same sin 
 that caused God to destroy the earth by a flood ; and that, 
 actuated by the fear of a similar fate, springing from a like 
 cause , they hoped to avoid it by a tower, which should reach 
 heaven; that their confusion and dispersion, and the stop¬ 
 ping of the building of their city by God—all, all go to show 
 what sort of people they were, and what sin it was that 
 caused God to deal with them so totally different from his 
 treatment of any other people. The very language used by 
 them, on the occasion, goes plainly to prove that those Babel- 
 builders knew that they were but beasts , and knew what the 
 effect of that sin would be, that was being committed daily. 
 They knew it was the very nature of beasts to be scattered 
 over the earth, and that they had no name (from God, as Adam 
 had); therefere they said, “ one to another, let us make brick, 
 and let us build us a city , and a tower whose top may reach 
 heaven; and let us make us a name (as God gave us none), 
 lest we be scattered abroad A Name, in the Hebrew scrip¬ 
 tures, signified “ power, authority, rule,” as may be readily 
 seen by consulting the Bible. And God said : “And this they 
 will begin to do, and nothing will be restrained from them which 
 they have imagined to do; let us, therefore, confound their 
 language, that they might not understand one another.” This 
 language is very peculiar —used as it is by God—and there 
 is more in it than appears on the surface, or to a superficial 
 reader; but we will not pause to consider it now. The con¬ 
 fusion of language was confined to those there assembled . Why 
 should God object to their building a city, if they were the 
 descendants of Adam and Eve? But it is plain he did object 
 to their building one. Did God object to Cain’s building a 
 city?—although a fratricidal murderer. Did he object to 
 Mizraim and his descendants building those immense cities 
 which they built on the Nile? No. In short, did God ever ob¬ 
 ject to any of the known descendants of Adam and Eve build¬ 
 ing a city, or as many as they might choose to build? Never. 
 But, from some cause or other, God did object to those people 
 
34 
 
 TIIE NEGRO. 
 
 building that city and that tower. The objection could not 
 be in regard to its locality, nor to the ground on which it was 
 proposed to build them; for the great City of Babylon, and- 
 with higher towers, too, was afterward built on the same 
 spot —but by another people —Shem’s descendants. Then, 
 what could be the reason that could cause God to come down 
 from heaven to prevent these people from building it? It 
 must be some great cause that would bring God down to 
 overthrow and prevent it. He allowed the people of Shorn, 
 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 ob¬ 
 jects and purposes of these people, and this logic of facts, 
 force our minds, in spite of all opposing reasons to the con¬ 
 trary, to the conviction that the sin of these people was the 
 identical sin, and consequent corruption of the race, as that 
 which caused the destruction of the world by the flood; and 
 that sin, the amalagamation or miscegenation of Nimrod and 
 his kindred with beasts—the daughters of men —negroes. 
 But, this view of who it was that attempted the building of 
 the tow T er 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 gene¬ 
 alogy 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 wdiy 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, 
 
Ills ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC. 
 
 35 
 
 and the Jebmite , and the Amorite , and the Girgasite, and the 
 Hivite , and, the Ajdzite, and the Sinite , and the Arvidite , and 
 the Zemarite , and the Hamathite , and who afterward were 
 the families of the Canaanite spread abroad.” With all 
 other families the Divine Record goes on as this commenced, 
 giving the names of all the sons. But in this family of Ca¬ 
 naan, after naming the two sons Sidon and Heth (who settled 
 Sidon, Tyre and Carthage, and were white as is plainly shown) 
 it breaks off abruptly to these ites. Why this suffix of ite 
 to their names ? It is extraordinary and unusual; there must 
 be some reason, a peculiar reason for this departure from the 
 usual mode or rule, of which this is the only exception. 
 What does it mean ? The reason is plain. The progeny of 
 the horse and ass species is never classed with either its 
 father or mother, but is called a mule and represents neither. 
 So the progeny of a son of God, a descendant of Adam and 
 Eve with the negro a beast, is not classed with or called by 
 the name of either its father or mother, but is an ite, a 
 “class”—“bonded class ,” not race , God intending by this 
 distinguishment to show to all future ages what will become 
 of all such ites , by placing in bold relief before our eyes the 
 terrible end of these as we shall see presently. Reader, bear 
 in mind the end of these ites when we come to narrate them. 
 These ites , the progeny of Canaan and the negro, inhabited 
 the land of Canaan ; with other places, they occupied what 
 was then the beautiful plain and vale of Siddim, where they 
 built the notorious cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and 
 Zeboim. Like all counterfeits , they were ambitious of ap¬ 
 pearing as the genuine descendants of Adam, whose name 
 they knew or had heard meant “red and fair” in Hebrew; 
 they, therefore, called one of their cities Admah , to repre¬ 
 sent 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 Hood 
 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 re¬ 
 freshments prepared for them ; they did so, and when about to 
 depart one of them said, “shall we keep from Abraham that 
 thing which I do (God come down again), seeing he shall 
 
36 
 
 THE NEGRO. 
 
 surely become a great and mighty nation, for I know he will 
 command his children and his household after him, and they 
 shall keep the way of the Lord; ” that is, keeping Adam’s race 
 pure—a mission the Jews are to this day fulfilling. And 
 they told Abraham of the impending fate of these cities. 
 Abraham interceded for them, and pleaded that the righteous 
 should not be destroyed with the wicked. God ultimately 
 promised him, that if there were ten righteous in all these 
 cities that he would not destroy them. What strong foun¬ 
 dation have we people of the United States in God’s mercy 
 and forbearance in this incident? Will we prove worthy ? 
 The angels went to Sodom and brought out all the righteous, 
 being only Lot and his two daughters (and their righteous¬ 
 ness 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 punish¬ 
 ment is on earth. Exhaust the catalogue of human deprav¬ 
 ity—name every crime human turpitude can possibly perpe¬ 
 trate, and which has been perpetrated on earth since the 
 fall of Adam, and no such judgment of God on any people 
 has ever before fallen, on their commission. But one crime, 
 one other crime, and that crime the same for which he had 
 destroyed every living thing on earth, save what was in the 
 ark. But now he destroys by fire, not by water, but by fire, 
 men, women and children, old and young, for the crime of 
 miscegenating of Adam's race with the negroes. Noah was 
 a preacher of righteousness to the antediluvians, yet he got 
 drunk after the flood. Lot too was a preacher of righteous¬ 
 ness to the cities of the plain, and he too not only got drunk 
 but did so repeatedly, and committed a double crime of incest 
 besides. Then we ask, what righteousness, what kind of 
 righteousness was it that was thus preached by such men ? 
 We speak with entire reverence when we say that the logic 
 of facts shows but little of morality—but it does show, as it 
 was intended io be shown by God, that, though frail and sin¬ 
 ful in a moral sense as they were, yet, being perfect in their 
 genealogies from Adam and Eve, they could still be his 
 
IIIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC. 
 
 37 
 
 preachers of righteousness, they themselves being right in 
 keeping from beastly alliances. 
 
 But the Bible evidence to the truth of these views does 
 not stop here. God appeared unto Abraham at another time, 
 while sojourning in the land of Canaan, and told him that all 
 that land he would give to him and to his seed after him forever. 
 But the land was already inhabited and owned by these ties. 
 If they were the natural descendants of Adam and Eve, would 
 they not have been as much entitled to hold, occupy and en¬ 
 joy it as Abraham or any other? Most certainly. If these 
 Hes were God's children by Adam and Eve, it is impossible 
 to suppose that God would turn one child out of house and 
 land and give them to another, without right and without 
 justice; and which he would be doing, were he to act so. 
 Nay! but the Lord of the whole earth will do right. But 
 God did make such a promise to Abraham, and he made it 
 in righteousness, truth and justice. When the time came 
 for Abraham’s seed to enter upon it and to possess it, God 
 sent Moses and Aaron to bring them up out of Egypt, where 
 they had long been in bondage, and they did so. But now 
 mark what follows: God explicitly enjoins upon them, 
 (1.) that they shall not take, of the daughters of the land, 
 wives for their sons; nor give their daughters in marriage 
 to them. Strange conflict of God with himself, if indeed 
 these Canaanites were his children ! To multiply and re¬ 
 plenish the earth, is God’s command to Adam ; but his com¬ 
 mand to Moses is, that Israel, known to be the children of 
 Adam, shall not take wives of these Canaanites for their 
 sons—nor shall they give their daughters to them. Why 
 this conflict of the one great lawgiver, if these Canaanites 
 were God’s children through Adam ? It could not be to 
 identify the Messiah, for that required only the lineage of 
 one family. But mark, (2.) “But of the cities and people of 
 the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inher¬ 
 itance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breathes , but thou 
 shalt utterly destroy them, namely the llittites, Canaanites,” 
 etc., naming all the ites —this is their end. Why this terri¬ 
 ble order of extermination given? and given by God him¬ 
 self? Will not the Lord of the whole earth do right? Yes, 
 verily. Then, we ask, what is that great and terrible reason 
 for God ordering this entire extermination of these ites, if 
 indeed they were his children and the pure descendants of 
 Adam and Eve ? What crimes had they committed, that 
 had not been before committed by the pure descendants of 
 
38 
 
 THE NEGRO. 
 
 Noah? What iniquity had the little children and nursing 
 infants been guilty of, that such a terrible fate should over¬ 
 whelm them? There must have been some good cause for 
 such entire destruction ; for the Lord of the whole earth 
 does right, and only right. Let us see how God deals with 
 Adam's children, how bad soever they may be , in a moral sense , 
 in contrast with this order to exterminate. The Bible tells 
 us, that when the Hebrews approached the border of Sier 
 (which is in Canaan), God told them not to touch that land 
 nor its people, for he had given it to Esau for a possession. 
 Yet this Esau had sold his birthright for a mess of pottage, 
 and he and his people were idolaters, and treated the chil¬ 
 dren of Israel with acts of hostility which some of these ites 
 had not. Again, they were not to touch the land of Am¬ 
 mon, nor that of Moab, although they were the offspring of 
 incestuous intercourse, and were, with the people of Sier, as 
 much given to idolatry and all other moral crimes, and as 
 much so as any of these Canaanites whom God directed 
 Moses to exterminate. Why except those, and doom these 
 to extermination? Was not Canaan, the father of these ites, 
 a grandson of Noah, and as much related to the Hebrews as 
 were the children of Esau, Moab and Ammon ? Certainly. 
 Then, their destruction was not for want of kinship ; nor was 
 it because they were idolaters more than these, or were 
 greater moral criminals in the sight of Heaven; but simply 
 because they were the progeny of amalgamation or miscegena¬ 
 tion betioeen Canaan , a son of Adam and Eve , and the negro ; 
 and were neither man nor beast . For this crime God had 
 destroyed the world, sown confusion broad-cast at Babel, 
 burnt up the inhabitants of the vale of Siddim, and for it 
 would now exterminate the Canaanite. It is a crime that 
 God has never forgiven, never will forgive, nor can it be pro¬ 
 pitiated by all the sacrifices earth can make or give. God 
 has shown himself, in regard to it, long-suffering and of great 
 forbearance. However much our minds may seek and de¬ 
 sire to seek other reasons for this order of extermination of 
 God, yet we look in vain, even to the Hebrews themselves, 
 for reasons to be found, in their superior moral conduct to¬ 
 ward 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 amalgama¬ 
 tion. The exterminator and the exterminated were bad, 
 equally alike in every moral or religious sense—save one 
 thing, and one thing only—one had not brutalized himself 
 
Ills ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC. 
 
 39 
 
 by amalgamating with negroes, the other had. This logic of 
 facts, forces our minds, compels our judgment, and presses 
 all our reasoning faculties back, in spite of ourselves or our 
 wishes, to the conclusion that it was this one crime, and one 
 crime only , that was the originating cause of this terrible and 
 inexorable fate of the Canaanite; being, as they were, the 
 corrupt seed of Canaan, God destroyed them. For, if these 
 Canaanites had been the full children of Adam and Eve, 
 they would have been as much entitled to the land, under the 
 grant by God, of the whole earth, to Adam and his posterity, 
 with the right of dominion, and their right to it as perfect 
 as that of Abraham could possibly be; but, being partly 
 beasts and partly human , God not only dispossessed them of 
 it, but also ordered their entire extermination, for he had 
 given no part of the earth to such beings . This judgment of 
 God on these people has been harped upon by every deisti- 
 cal and atheistical writer, from the days of Celsus down to 
 Thomas Paine of the present age, but without understand¬ 
 ing it. This crime must be unspeakably great, when we 
 read, as we do in the Bible, that it caused God to repent and 
 to be grieved at his heart that he had made man. For, the 
 debasing idolatry of the world, the murder of the good and 
 noble of earth, the forswearing of the apostle Peter in deny¬ 
 ing 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 scorch¬ 
 ing fire of God burning alive the inhabitants of Sodom and 
 Gomorrah, death to man, woman and child, flocks and herds, 
 remorseless, relentless and exterminating death—is the just 
 judgment of an all-merciful God, for this offense. The seed 
 of Adam, which is the seed of God, must be kept pure ; it 
 shall be kept pure , is the fiat of the Almighty. Man perils 
 his existence, nations peril their existence and destruction, 
 if they support, countenance, or permit it. Such have been 
 God's dealings with it heretofore, and such will be his deal¬ 
 ings with it hereafter. 
 
 But we have said before, that we intentionally selected Ca¬ 
 naan, the youngest son of Ham, and for a purpose. This we 
 will now explain. Had Noah named Ham instead of Canaan, 
 when he declared that he should be a servant of servants to 
 his brethren, the learned world are of the opinion that it would 
 have forever, and satisfactorily settled the question, in con¬ 
 junction with the meaning of his name in Hebrew, that 11am 
 
10 
 
 THE NEGRO. 
 
 tv as 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 fore¬ 
 head 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 Ileth. 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, un¬ 
 questionably. 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 Ca- 
 naanite 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 amalga¬ 
 mation 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 Ileth, then it is plain, that we 
 must seek the reason for their destruction, in something be¬ 
 sides moral delinquency ? Let us see if we can find that 
 something ? The Bible tells us, that God in one of his in¬ 
 terviews with Abraham, informed him that all that land (in¬ 
 cluding all these ites) should be his and his seed s after him— 
 
HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC. 
 
 41 
 
 “ 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, re¬ 
 ferred 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 extermin¬ 
 ation), 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 extermi¬ 
 nating, 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 amal¬ 
 gamation 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 abhor¬ 
 rence 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 
 liis 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 
 Oanaanites—the fifth, the inhibition and exclusion, by express law of 
 
 4 
 
42 
 
 THE NEGRO. 
 
 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 Japlieth, from the pres¬ 
 ent 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 r 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 sus¬ 
 tain 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 ne¬ 
 gro 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, un¬ 
 dertake to prop it up by saying that Ham’s name means black in He¬ 
 brew; 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 sags , and nowhere charges, or even inti¬ 
 mates, 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 as¬ 
 sumptions 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 auliite 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 uj 
 
HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC. 
 
 43 
 
 that Ham was turned into a negro for accidentally seeing his fathei 
 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 note, and known as much so and as posi¬ 
 tively 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 over- 
 whelming and convincing than that of Japheth—and none doubt Japli- 
 eth’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 do¬ 
 ing that one thing for centuries, and for no other purpose in God’s provb 
 dence, 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 gene¬ 
 alogy, when they had accomplished the end designed by God, the3 f 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 ac¬ 
 complish, to preserve human bodies after death; and to preserve them 
 to last for thousands of vears, was still more difficult. How did Miz- 
 raim 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 onlv satisfactory answer 
 to these questions, is, that God inspired him. Then, it is God’s testi¬ 
 mony, 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, inno¬ 
 cently, 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 re examine your grounds for so believing 
 heretofore, and now set yourselves right. God’s Bible is against your 
 
44 
 
 THE NEGRO. 
 
 views; concurrent history is against them; the existing race of Ham is 
 against them ; God's living testimony is against them, in the dead chil¬ 
 dren of Mizraim, embalmed ever since the flood, but now brought forth 
 into the light of day, and testifying for Ham, that he and his descend¬ 
 ants 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 
 6ets 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 con¬ 
 trol 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: Start¬ 
 ing from the flood, they began to build for Eternity. Ham, the slan¬ 
 dered 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 aarth. 
 
HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC. 
 
 45 
 
 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 jlat-nosed negro , whom he had ex¬ 
 pressly forbidden to approach his altar? The idea is entirely incon¬ 
 sistent 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 con¬ 
 tinue it for twentv-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, conse¬ 
 quently we know that he was created before Adam, as certainly and as 
 positively as we know that the horse and every other animal were cre¬ 
 ated before him; as Adam and Eve were the last beings created by 
 God. (8.) That the negro being created before Adam, consequent^ 
 he is a beast in God’s nomenclature; and being a beast, was unuer 
 Adam’s rule and dominion, and, like all other beasts or animals, nas 
 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 with¬ 
 out 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 w r as shown at Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the exter¬ 
 mination 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 
 
46 
 
 THE NEGRO. 
 
 suppose, and as no one could then perform a miracle but God onlv 
 and if lie 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 be¬ 
 liever in the Bible. God called it a beast— u 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 fed¬ 
 eral 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 w hy 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, con¬ 
 tention 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 theyn 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 rnoveth 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 rnoveth 
 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 
 u 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. 285), when men —the 
 negro—erected the first altar on earth; they bad 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 on the name of the Lord; they are yet imi¬ 
 tating ; 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 along¬ 
 side of that being, and against God ? All analogy says you will! But 
 remember, that the righteous will escape—the hardened alone will 
 perish. 
 
 The ways of God are always consistent , when understood , and always 
 just and reasonable. It is a curious fact, but a fact, nevertheless, and 
 fully sustained by the Bible; and that fact is this: That God never con 
 ferred, and never designed to confer, any great blessing on the human 
 family, but what he always selects or selected a white slaveholder or 
 
Ills ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS, ETC. 
 
 47 
 
 one of a white slaveholding nation , as the medium, by or through which 
 that blessing should reach them. Why he lias done so, is not material 
 to discuss now; but the fact, that he always did so, the Bible abun¬ 
 dantly 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 eight¬ 
 een slaves. And the Saviour of the world was of a white slaveholding 
 nation; and they held slaves by God’s own laws, and not by theirs. And 
 how has it been in respect of our own nation and government, the 
 United States? A government now declared by thousands of lips, latterly, 
 to be the best, the very best, that has ever been in the world. Who 
 made this government? Who established it and its noble principles ? 
 Let us appeal to history. The first attack on British power, and the 
 aggressions of its parliament, ever made on this continent, was made 
 by a slaveholder, from a slave state, Patrick Henry, May 30, 1765. 
 The first president of the first congress, that ever assembled on this 
 continent, to consider of the affairs of the thirteen colonies, and which 
 met in Philadelphia, September 5, 1774, was a slave owner from a 
 slave state, Peyton Randolph. The only secretary that congress ever 
 had, was a slave owner from a slave state, Charles Thompson. The 
 gentleman who was chairman of the committee of the whole, on Sat¬ 
 urday, the 8th of June, 1776, and who, on the morning of the 10th re¬ 
 ported the resolutions, that the thirteen colonies, of right ought to be 
 free and independent states , was a slaveholder from a slave state, Ben¬ 
 jamin 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 
 slaveowner, from a slave state, George Washington. The gentleman who 
 was president of the convention, to form the constitution of the L T nited 
 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 slaveowner, from a slave 
 state, James Madison. The first president of the United States, under 
 that constitution, and who, under God gave it strength, consistency and 
 power before the world, was a slave owner, from a slave state, George 
 Washington; and these were all white men and slave owners; and 
 whatever of peace, prosperity, happiness and glory, the people of the 
 United States have enjoyed under it, have been from the administration 
 of the government, by presidents elected by the people, of slave holders, 
 from slave states. Whenever the people have elected a president from 
 a non-slaveholding state, commencing with the elder Adams, and down 
 to Mr. Lincoln, confusion, wrangling and strife have been the order of 
 the day, until it culminated in the greatest civil war the world has ever 
 beheld, under the last named gentleman. Why this has been so is not 
 in the line of our subject. We mention it as a matter of history, to 
 confirm the Bible fact, that God always selects slaveholders , or from a 
 slaveholding nation, the media through which he confers his blessings 
 on mankind. Would it not be wisdom to heed it now? 
 
 One reflection and then we are done. The people of the United 
 States have now thrust upon them, the question of negro equality, so¬ 
 cial, political and religious. How will they decide it? If they decide 
 
48 
 
 THE NEGRO. 
 
 it one way, then they will make the sixth cause of invoking GocTa 
 wrath, once again on the earth. They will begin to discover this ap¬ 
 proaching wrath: (1.) By God bringing confusion. (2.) By his breaking 
 the government into pieces, or fragments, in which the negro will go 
 and settle with those that favor this equality. (3.) In God pouring out 
 the fire of his wrath, on this portion of them; but in what way, or in 
 what form, none can tell until it comes, only that in severity it will 
 equal in intensity and torture, the destruction of fire burning them up. (4.) 
 The states or people that favor this equality and amalgamation of the white and 
 black races, God will exterminate. To make the negro, the political, social and 
 religious equal of the white race by law, by statute and by constitutions, can eas¬ 
 ily be effected in words; but so to elevate the negro jure divino, is simply im¬ 
 possible. You can not elevate a beast to the level of a son of God—a son of Adam 
 and Eve—but you may depress the sons of Adam and Eve, with their impress 
 of the Almighty, down to the level of a beast. God has made one for immortality, 
 and the other to perish with the animals of the earth. The antediluvians once 
 made this depression. Will the people of the United States make another, and 
 the last f 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 mar¬ 
 riage to a negro—a beast —or to take one of their females for his wife. As well 
 might he in the sight of God, wed his child to any other beast of forest or of field. 
 This crime can not be expiated—it never has been expiated on earth—and from 
 its nature never can be, and, consequently, never was forgiven by God, and 
 never will be. The negro is now free. There are but two things on earth, that 
 may be done with him now, and the people and government of this country 
 escape destruction. One or the other God will make you do, or make you accept 
 his punishment, as he made Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Canaanites, 
 before you. You must send him back to Africa or re-enslave him. The former is 
 the best, far the best. Now, which will my countrymen do? I do not say fel¬ 
 low-citizens, as I regard myself but as a sojourner in the land, whose every po¬ 
 litical duty is now performed by obeying your laws, be they good or bad— 
 not voting, nor assisting others in making your laws. Will my countrymen, 
 in deciding for themselves these questions, remember—will they remember, that 
 the first law of liberty is obedience to God. Without this obedience to the 
 great and noble principles of God, truth, righteousness and justice, there can 
 be no liberty, no peace, no prosperity, no happiness in any earthly govern¬ 
 ment—if these are sacrificed or ignored, God will overturn and keep over¬ 
 turning, until mankind learn his truth, justice and mercy, and conform to them. 
 
 To the people of the South, we say, obedience to God is better than all sac¬ 
 rifices. You have sacrificed all your negroes. It was your ancestors, that God 
 made use of to form this noblest of all human governments—no others could 
 do it. Do not be cast down at what has happened, and what is yet to happen — 
 God will yet use you to reinstate and remodel this government, on its just 
 and noble principles and at the proper time. The North can never do it. These 
 are perilous times—the impending decisions will be against you, and against God. 
 But keep yourselves free from this sin — do not by your acts, nor by your votes, in¬ 
 vite the negro equality—if it is forced upon you, as it will be—obey the laws—re¬ 
 membering that God will protect the righteous; and that his truth, like itself, 
 will always be consistent, and like its Author, will be always and forever tri¬ 
 umphant. The finger of God is in this . Trust him . The Bible is true. 
 
 July, 1840. 
 
 December, 1866. ARIEL. 
 
 Note 1. Any candid scholar, wishing to address the writer, is informed, that 
 any letter addressed to “ Ariel,” care of Mes-rs. Payne, James & On., Nash¬ 
 ville, Tennessee, during this summer and fall (1867), will reach him and com¬ 
 mand his attention. 
 
 Notf. 2. Some few kinky-headed negroes, have been found embalmed on the 
 Nile, but the inscriptions on their sarcophagii, fully explain who they were, 
 and how they came to be there. They were generally negro traders from the 
 interior of the country, and of much later dates.