The Negro: What is His Ethnological Status? 2nd Ed.

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 subsequent 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, we know from his habits, when unrestrained, never inhabits mountainous districts or countries; and, therefore, we readily find him in the level Plain of Shinar. The whole facts narrated in the Bible, of what 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 negroes, subdued by and under the rule and direction of Nimrod; that the language used by them, why they would build them a tower, shows they were daily practicing 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 stopping 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); therefore 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." Name, in the Hebrew scriptures, 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 confusion 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 object to any of the known descendants of Adam and Eve building a city, or as many as they might choose to build? Never. But, from some cause or other, God did object to those people 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 Shem, afterward, to build the City of Babylon at the same place.

Reader, candid or uncandid, carefully read and reflect on the facts described in this whole affair. Then remember that, on one other occasion, God came down from heaven; that he talked with Noah; that he told him he was going to destroy the world; that he told him the reason why he intended to destroy it. Reader, do not the facts here detailed, of the objects and purposes of these people, and this logic of facts, force our minds, in spite of all opposing reasons to the contrary, 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 amalgamation 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 tower and city of Babel, and their reasons for doing so, will be confirmed by what is to follow.

The Bible informs us that Canaan, the youngest son of Ham, settled Canaan; and that it was from him the land took its name, as did the land of Mizraim, Ham's second son take its name from him, of what is now called Egypt. It was against this Canaan (not Ham) that the curse of Noah was directed, that a servant of servants should he be to his brethren. There is something of marked curiosity in the Bible account of this Canaan and his family. The language is singular, and differs from the Bible account of every other family in the Bible, where it proposes to give and does give the genealogy of any particular family. Why is this, there must be some reason, and some valid reason too, or there would be no variation in the particulars we refer to from that of any other family? The account in the Bible reads thus – "And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and Heth." So far so good. And why not continue on giving the names of his other sons as in all other genealogies? But it does not read so. It reads, "And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and Heth, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, and the Arvadite, 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 Canaan, 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 appearing as the genuine descendants of Adam, whose name they knew or had heard meant "red and fair" in Hebrew; they, therefore, called one of their cities Admah, to represent this "red and fair" man, and at the same time it should mean in negro "Ethiopic" "beautiful" – that kind of beauty that once seduced the sons of God, and brought the flood upon the earth. About the time we are now referring to, Abraham, a descendant of Shem was sojourning in Canaan. He had a nephew named Lot who had located himself in the vale of Siddim, and at this time was living in Sodom. One day three men were seen by Abraham passing his tent; it was summer time. Abraham ran to them and entreated that they should abide under the tree, while he would have refreshment prepared for them; they did so, and when about to depart one of them said, "shall we keep from Abraham that thing which I do (God come down again), seeing he shall surely become a great and mighty nation, for I know he will command his children and 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 foundation 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 righteousness was not in their morality), his wife being turned into a pillar of salt. This done, God rained fire upon these cities and literally burnt up their inhabitants alive, and everything they had, and then sunk the very ground upon which their cities stood more than a thousand feet beneath, not the pure waters of the deluge, but beneath the bitter, salt, and slimy waters of Asphaltites, wherein no living thing can exist. An awful judgment! But it was for the most awful crime that man can commit in the sight of God, of which the punishment is on earth. Exhaust the catalogue of human depravity – name every crime human turpitude can possibly perpetrate, and which has been perpetrated on earth since the fall of Adam, and no such judgment of God on any people has ever before fallen, on their commission. But one crime, 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 righteousness to the cities of the plain, and he too not only got drunk but did so repeatedly, and committed a double crime of incest besides. Then we ask, 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 to be shown by God, that, though frail and sinful in a moral sense as they were, yet, being perfect in their genealogies from Adam and Eve, they could still be his 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 ites. If they were the natural descendants of Adam and Eve, would they not have been as much entitled to hold, occupy and enjoy it as Abraham or any other? Most certainly. If these ites 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 replenish the earth, is God's command to Adam; but his command to Moses is, that Israel, known to be the children of Adam, shall not take wives of these Canaanites for their sons – nor shall they give their daughters to them. Why this conflict of the one great lawgiver, if these Canaanites were God's children through Adam? It could not be to identify the Messiah, for that required only the lineage of one family. But mark, (2.) "But of the cities and people of the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breathes, but thou shalt utterly destroy them, namely the Hittites, Canaanites," etc., naming all the ites– this is their end. Why this terrible order of extermination given? and given by God himself? Will not the Lord of the whole earth do right? Yes, verily. Then, we ask, what is that great and terrible reason for God ordering this entire extermination of 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 Noah? What iniquity had the little children and nursing infants been guilty of, that such a terrible fate should overwhelm them? There must have been some good cause for such entire destruction; for the Lord of the whole earth does right, and only right. Let us see how God deals 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 children of Israel with acts of hostility which some of these ites had not. Again, they were not to touch the land of Ammon, 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 miscegenation between 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 propitiated 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 desire to seek other reasons for this order of extermination of God, yet we look in vain, even to the Hebrews themselves, for reasons to be found, in their superior moral conduct toward God; but we look in vain. The very people for whom they were exterminated were, in their moral conduct and obedience to God, no better, save in that sin of amalgamation. The exterminator and the exterminated were bad, equally alike in every moral or religious sense – save one thing, and one thing only – one had not brutalized himself 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 deistical and atheistical writer, from the days of Celsus down to Thomas Paine of the present age, but without understanding it. This crime must be unspeakably great, when we read, as we do in the Bible, that it caused God to repent and to be grieved at his heart that he had 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 denying his Lord and Saviour – all, all the crimsoned crimes of earth, or within the power of man's infamy and turpitude to commit and blacken his soul – are as nothing on earth, as compared with this. Death by the flood, death by the scorching fire of God burning alive the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, death to man, woman and child, flocks and herds, remorseless, relentless and exterminating death – is 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 dealings with it hereafter.

But we have said before, that we intentionally selected Canaan, the youngest son of Ham, and for a purpose. This we will now explain. Had Noah named Ham instead of Canaan, when he declared that he should be a servant of servants to his brethren, the learned world are of the opinion that it would have forever, and satisfactorily settled the question, in conjunction with the meaning of his name in Hebrew, that Ham was the father of the present negro race – that if this curse had been specifically and personally directed against Ham, instead of his youngest son Canaan, then, no doubt could exist on earth, but that Ham was, and is the father of the negro. This is the opinion of the learned. But, why so? Could not the curse affect Canaan as readily? If it could affect Ham in changing his color, kinking his hair, crushing his forehead down and flattening his nose, why would it not be equally potent in producing those effects on Canaan? Surely its effects would be as great on one person as another? It was to relieve our learned men from this dilemma, among others, that we took up Canaan, to show, that although this curse was hurled specifically and personally at Canaan, by Noah, that a servant of servants should he be, yet it carried no such effects with it on Canaan or his posterity. Then, if it did not make the black negro of Canaan, how could it have produced that effect on Ham, Canaan's father? Canaan had two white sons, with long, straight hair, etc., peculiar alone to the white race, and not belonging to the negro race at all, which is proof that the curse did not affect his hair or the color of his skin, nor that of his posterity. Canaan had two white sons by his first wife, Sidon and Heth. They settled Phœnicia, Sidon, Tyre, Carthage, etc. The city of Sidon took its name from the elder. That they were white, and belong to the white race alone, we have before proven, unquestionably. But we will do so again, for the purpose of showing what that curse was, and what it did effect, and why this order of extermination. Canaan was the father of all these ites. Nine are first specifically named, and then it is added, "and who afterward, were the families of the Canaanite spread abroad." Was not Canaan as much and no more the father of these ites, than he was of Sidon and Heth? Certainly. Then why doom them and their flocks and herds to extermination, and except the families of Sidon and Heth, his two other sons? Were they morally any better, except as to their not being the progeny of amalgamation with negroes? They were not. Then why save one and doom the other? If these ites were no worse morally than the children of Sidon and Heth, then it is plain, that we must seek the reason for their destruction, in something besides moral delinquency? Let us see if we can find that something? The Bible tells us, that God in one of his interviews with Abraham, informed him that all that land (including all those ites) should be his and his seed's after him – "that his seed shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and be afflicted four hundred years, and thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; but in the fourth generation they shall come hither again, for the iniquity of the Amorites" (these representing all the ites), "is not yet full."

In the fourth generation their cup of iniquity would then be full – in the fourth generation God gave this order to exterminate these ites, and to leave nothing alive that breathes. If this filling of their cup, referred to moral crimes to be committed, or to moral obliquity as such, then it is very strange. If this be its reference, then these people were, at that time (four generations previous to this order for their extermination), worse than the very devil himself, as it was not long before they did fill their cup, and the devil's cup is not full yet. If this filling up of iniquity, referred to their moral conduct in the sight of God, how was Moses or Joshua to see that it was full, or when it was full? Yet, they must know it, or they would not know when to commence exterminating, as God intended. How were they to know it? As in the case of Sodom they had a few Lots among them, and the color would soon tell when their iniquity was full, and neither Moses nor Joshua would be at any loss when to begin, or who to exterminate. Consummated amalgamation would tell when their cup of iniquity was full. The iniquity of the Amorites (these representing all) is not yet full, is the language of God – in the fourth generation it will be full, and then Abraham's seed should possess the land, and these ites be exterminated. Let us inquire? Does not each generation, morally stand before God, on their own responsibility in regard to sin? Certainly they do. How then, could the cumulative sins of one generation be passed to the next succeeding one, to their moral injury or detriment? Impossible! But the iniquity here spoken of, could be so transmitted; and at the time when God said it, he tells us that it required four generations to make the iniquity full. What crime but the amalgamation of Adam's sons, the children of God, with the negro – beasts – called by Adam men, could require four generations to fill up their iniquity, but this crime of amalgamation? None. Then we know the iniquity, and what God then thought and yet thinks of it.