Chapter II: Part 2

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 indubitably follows, from the necessities of the case, that he entered the ark as a _beast_, and _only_ as a beast. Now, it is very plain, from this statement, that as he came out of the Ark, the negro, _as we now know him_, existed anterior to the flood, and _just such a negro as we have now_, with his kinky head, flat nose, black skin, etc.; and that, Noah and his wife being white, and perfect in their genealogy, it establishes that Adam and Eve were white; and no _mesalliance_ having taken place from Adam to Noah, by which the negro could be produced, that, therefore, as neither of the sons of Noah, nor Noah himself, nor Adam and Eve, ever could by any possibility be, either of them, the progenitor of the negro, that, therefore, it follows, from this logic of facts, that the negro is a _separate_ and _distinct_ species of the _genus homo_ from Adam and Eve, and being distinct from them, that it _unquestionably_ follows that _the negro was created before Adam and Eve_. Created before them? Yes. How do we know this? Because the Bible plainly tells us that Adam and Eve were the last beings of God's creation on earth, and being _the last_, that the negro must have existed before they were created; for he is here now, and not being their offspring, it follows, from this logic of facts, that he was on the earth before them, and if on the earth before Adam, that he is inevitably a beast, and as a beast, entered the ark. Let us recapitulate our points. We have shown that the assumption of the learned world, that Ham is the progenitor of the negro, is a mistake, philanthropically and innocently made, we have no doubt, but nevertheless a mistake, and a very great one. As Ham is not the father of the negro, and no one asserts that either Shem or Japheth is, then the negro belongs to another race of people, and that he came out of the ark, is a demonstrated fact; and not being of Noah's family, who are white, and Adam and Eve being likewise white, therefore, _they_ could not be the progenitors of the negro; and as neither the _name_ or _curse_ did make Ham a negro, or the father of negroes (and this covers the space of time from now back to the flood and to Noah), and no _mesalliance_ ever having taken place from the flood or Noah, back to Adam and Eve, by which the negro can be accounted for, and Adam and Eve being white, that they could never be the father or mother of the kinky-headed, low forehead, flat nose, thick lip and black-skinned negro; and as Adam and Eve were the last beings created by God on earth, therefore, all beasts, cattle, etc., were consequently made _before_ Adam and Eve were created; and the negro being now here on earth, and not Adam's progeny, it follows, beyond all the reasonings of men on earth to controvert, that he was created _before_ Adam, and with the other beasts or cattle, and being created _before_ Adam, that, like all beasts and cattle, they have no souls. This can not be gainsaid, and being true, let us see if it is in philosophic harmony with God's order among animals in their creation. Not to be prolix on this point, we will take a few cases. We will begin with the cat. The cat, as a genera of a species of animals, we trace in his order of _creation_ through various grades--cougar, panther, leopard, tiger, up to the lion, improving in each gradation from the small cat up to the lion, a noble beast. Again, we take the ass, and we trace through the intervening animals of the same species up to the horse, another noble animal. Again, we take up the monkey, and trace him likewise through his upward and advancing orders--baboon, ourang-outang and gorilla, up to the negro, another noble animal, the noblest of the beast creation.

The difference between these higher orders of the monkey and the negro, is very slight, and consists mainly in this one thing: the negro can utter sounds that can be imitated; hence he could talk with Adam and Eve, for they could imitate his sounds. This is the foundation of language. The gorilla, ourang-outang, baboon, etc., have languages peculiar to themselves, and which they understand, because they can imitate each other's sounds. But man can not imitate them, and hence can not converse with them. The negro's main superiority over them is, that he utters sounds that could be imitated by Adam; hence, conversation ensued between them. Again, the baboon is thickly clothed with hair, and goes erect a _part_ of his time. Advancing still higher in the scale, the ourang-outang is less thickly covered with hair, and goes erect most altogether. Still advancing higher in the scale, the gorilla has still less hair, and is of a black skin, and goes erect when moving about. A recent traveler in Africa states that the gorilla frequently steals the negro women and girls, and carry them off for wives. It is thus seen that the gradation, from the monkey up to the negro, is in philosophical juxtaposition, in God's order of creation. The step from the negro to Adam, is still progressive, and consists of change of color, hair, forehead, nose, lips, etc., and _immortality_. That the negro existed on earth before Adam was created, is so positively plain from the preceding facts, no intelligent, candid man can doubt; and that he so existed before Adam, and _as a man_ (for he was so _named_ by Adam), we now proceed to show.

We read in the Bible, and God said, let us make man _in_ our own image and after _our_ likeness; which is equivalent to saying, we have _man_ already, but _not in our_ image; for if the negro was already in God's image, _God could not have said_, now let us make man _in_ our image. But God did say, after he had created every thing else on earth _but Adam_, that he _then_ said, let us make man _in our_ image, and after _our likeness_, and let him, so created now, have dominion. God so formed _this_ man, out of the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and he became a living soul, and endowed with immortality. Now, it is indisputably plain, and so shown from the Bible in this paper, that _this_ BEING, thus created by God, had long, straight hair, high forehead, high nose, thin lips, and white skin, and which the negro has not; and it is equally clearly shown that the negro is not the progeny of Adam. Therefore the negro must have existed before Adam. But another fact: Adam was to have _dominion_ over all the earth. There must, of _necessity_, be an established boundary to that dominion, as betwixt God and himself, in order that Adam should rule only in his allotted dominion. In settling this domain, the Bible is full and exact. That which was to be, and to continue under _God's_ dominion, rule and control, God named himself. He called the light, day; the darkness he called night; the dry land he called earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called seas; and the firmament he called heaven, etc. And what was to be under Adam's dominion, rule and control, Adam named himself, but by God's direction and authority. But mark: _Adam did not name himself_--for no child ever names himself. But God named _him and his race_, but he did not call or name him _man_ after he created him. Adam's dominion, starting _from_ himself, went _downward_ in the scale of creation; while God's dominion, starting _with_ Adam, went upward. God, foreseeing that Adam would call the negro by the name _man_, when he said, let us make man, therefore so used the term; for by such _name_ "man," the negro, was known by to the flood, but not _the_ man.

Whenever Adam is personally spoken of in the Hebrew scriptures, invariably his name has the prefix, _the_ man, to contradistinguish him from the negro, who is called _man_ simply, and was so _named_ by Adam. By inattention to this distinction, made by God himself, the world is indebted for the confusion that exists regarding Adam and his race, and the negro. Adam and his race were to be _under God's dominion, rule and government_, and was, therefore, _named_ by God, "and he called _their_ name Adam," in reference to his _race_, and _the man_, to contradistinguish _him_ from the negro, whom Adam named "_man_." _But God did not call Adam man after he created him_--he called their name Adam--while Adam named the negro _man_. But some may say, again, as many have already said, that the negro might be the offspring of Adam by some other woman, or of Eve by some one other than Adam. Have such reasoners thought of the destruction, the _certain_ destruction, to their own theory, this assumption would entail upon them? Can they not see that, in either case, by Adam or by Eve, the progeny would be a _mulatto_, and not a kinky-headed, flat nose, black negro, and that we should be at as much loss as before, to account for the negro as we now have him on earth, as ever. And if such miscegenating and crossing continued, that now we would have no _kinky heads_ nor _black skins_ among us. But this amalgamation of the whites and blacks was never consummated until a later day, and then we shall see what God thought of its practice. But while on this point, just here let us remark, that God in the creating of Adam, to be the head of creation, intended to distinguish, and did distinguish, him with eminent grandeur and notableness in his creation, over and above everything else that had preceded it. But when creating the negro and other beasts and animals, he made the male and female--each out of the ground. Not so with Adam and his female, for God expressly tells us that he made Adam's wife out of himself, thus securing the _unity_ of immortality _in his race alone_, and hence he called _their_ name Adam, not _man_. The black _man_ was the _back ground_ of the picture, to show the white man to the world, in his dominion over the earth, as the _darkness_ was the back ground of the picture of creation, before and over which light, _God's light_, should forever be seen.

The discussion and practice of the social and political equality of the white and black races, heretofore, have always carried along with them their kindred error of the equality of _rights_ of the _two_ sexes, in all things pertaining to human affairs and government. But both end in destruction, _entire_ destruction and extermination, as we shall see in the further prosecution of our subject, and as the Bible plainly teaches. The conclusion, then, that the negro which we now have on earth was created _before_ Adam, is inevitable, from the logic of facts, and the divine testimony of the Bible, and can not be resisted by all the reasonings of men on earth.

How is it that we say that the horse was created before Adam? The Bible does not tell us so in so many words, yet we _know_ that it is true. How do we know it? Simply because we know that the Bible plainly tells us that Adam and Eve were the last of God's creation on earth, and by the fact that we have the horse _now_, and know that he must have been created, and Adam being the last created, that, consequently, by this logic of facts, we _know_ that the horse was made before Adam. The horse has his distinctive characteristics, and by which he has been known in all ages of the world, and he has been described in all languages by those characteristics, so as to be recognized in all ages of the world. His characteristics are not more distinct from some other animals than that of the white race is distinct from that of the negro, or of the negro from the white. We can trace all the beasts, etc., now on earth, back to the flood, and from the flood back to the creation of the world, and just _such animals_ as we find them now. Why not the negro? We know we can that of the white man. Then we ask, again, why not the negro as readily as the white man or the horse? Has _any_ animal so changed from their creation that we can not recognize them now? Certainly not. Then, why say that the negro has? Has God ever changed any beings from the _order_ in which he created them since he made the world? Most certainly he has not. Has he ever intimated in any way that he would do so? Certainly not. Has he created any beings since he made Adam? No. How, then, can any man _assert that he did make or change a white man_ into a black _negro_, and say not _one word_ about it? Such a position is untenable, it is preposterous.

But, to go on with our subject: We read in the Bible that it came to pass when _men_ began to multiply, etc., that the sons of God saw the daughters of _men_, that they were fair, and they took themselves wives of all which they chose. A word or two of criticism before we proceed. In this quotation the word _men_ is correctly translated from the Hebrew, and as it applies to the negro, it is not in the original applied to Adam, for then it would be _the_ men, Adam and his race being so distinguished by God himself, when Adam was created. Again, the _daughters_ of _men_ were _fair_. The word _fair_ is not a correct rendering of the original, except as it covers simply the _idea_, captivating, enticing, seductive.

With this explanation we proceed, and in proceeding we will show these criticisms to be just and proper.

Who were these sons of God? Were they from heaven? If they were, then their morals were sadly out of order. Were they angels? Then it is very plain they never got back to heaven: nor are wicked angels ever sent to earth from heaven. And they are not on earth for the angels that sinned, are confined where there is certainly no water; and these were all _drowned_. And angels can not be drowned. Angels belong to heaven, and if they do anything wrong there, they are sent, not to earth, but to--tophet. They are not the sons of men from _below_, nor its angels; for these could not be called sons of God. Who were they then? We answer, without the fear of successful contradiction, that they were the sons of Adam and Eve, thus denominated by _pre-eminence_; and as they truly were, the sons of God, to show the horrible _crime_ of their criminal association with _beasts_. Immortal beings allying themselves with the beasts of the earth. These daughters of _men_ were _negroes_, and these sons of God, were the children of Adam and Eve, as we shall see presently, and beyond a shade of doubt.

God told Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth. Then it is plain, God could have no objection to their taking themselves wives of whom they chose, of their own race, in obeying this injunction; for they could not do otherwise in obeying it. But God _did_ object to their taking wives of _these daughters of men_. Then it is plain that these daughters of _men_, whatever else they may have been, _could not be the daughters_ of Adam and Eve; for, had they been, God would certainly not have objected, as they would have been exactly fulfilling his command, to take them wives and multiply. But our Saviour settles these points beyond any doubt, when he taught his disciples how to pray--to say, _Our Father_, who art in heaven. His disciples were white, and the lineal and pure descendants of Adam and Eve. This being so, then, when he told such to say, "Our Father, who art in heaven," equally and at the same time told them that, as God was their father, _they were the sons of God_; and as God did object to the "sons of God" taking them wives of these daughters of _men_, that it is _ipso facto_ God's testimony that these daughters of _men_ were negroes, and _not his children_. This settles the question that it was Adam's pure descendants who are here called the _sons of God_, and that these daughters of men were negroes.

By this logic of facts we see, then, who these sons of God were, and who these daughters of _men_ were; and that the crime they were committing, could not be, or ever will be, _propitiated_; for God neither _could_ or _would forgive it_, as we shall see. He determined to destroy them, and with them the world, by a flood, and for the crime of _amalgamation_ or _miscegenation_ of _the white race_ with that of _the black--mere beasts of the earth_. We can now form an opinion of the awful nature of this crime, in the _eyes of God_, when we know that he destroyed the world by a flood, on account of its perpetration. But it is probable that we should not, in this our day, have been so long in the dark in regard to the sin, the _particular_ sin, that brought the flood upon the earth, had not our translators rejected the rendering of some of the oldest manuscripts--the Chaldean, Ethiopic, Arabic, _et al._--of the Jewish or Hebrew scriptures, in which _that sin_ is plainly set forth; our translators believing it _impossible_ that brute beasts could corrupt themselves with mankind, and then, not thinking, or regarding, that the _negro_ was the _very beast_ referred to. But even after this rejection, such were the number and authenticity of manuscripts in which that _idea_ was still presented, that they felt constrained to admit it, covertly as it were, as may be seen on reading Gen. vi: 12-13, in our common version.

It will be admitted by all Biblical scholars, and doubted by none, that immediately after the fall of Adam in the garden of Eden, God then (perhaps on the same day), instituted and ordained sacrifices and offerings, as the media through which Adam and his race should approach God and call upon his name. That Adam did so--that Cain and Abel did so; and that Seth, through whom our Saviour descended after the flesh, did so, none can or will doubt, who believe in the Bible. Now, Seth's first-born son, Enos (Adam's first grandson), was born when Adam was two hundred and thirty-five years old. Upon the happening of the birth of this grandson, the sacred historian fixes the time, the _particular time_, immediately after the birth of Enos, as the period when a certain important matter _then first_ took place; that important event was: that "_Then_ men _began_ to call on the name of the Lord," as translated in our Bible. Who are _these men_ that _then began_ to call on the Lord? It was not Adam; it was not Cain; it was not Abel; it was not Seth; And these were all the men that were of Adam's race that were upon the earth at that time, or that had been, up to the birth of Enos; and these had been calling on the name of the Lord ever since the fall in the garden. Who were they, then? What _men_ were they, then on earth, that _then began_ to call on the name of the Lord? There is but one answer between earth and skies, that can be given in truth to this question. This logic of facts, this logic of Bible facts, plainly tells us that these _men_ who _then began_ (A.M. 235) to call upon the name of the Lord, were negroes--the _men_ so named by Adam when he named the other beasts and cattle. This can not be questioned. Any other view would make the Bible statements false, and we know the Bible to be true. If our translators (indeed all translators whose works we have examined), had not had their minds confused by the _idea_ that all who are, in the Bible, called _men_ were _Adam's_ progeny; or had they recognized the simple fact, that the term _man_ was the _name_ bestowed on the _negro_ by Adam, and that this _name_ was never applied to Adam and his race till long after the flood, they would have made a very different translation of this sentence from the original Hebrew. The logic of facts existing _before_ and at the time the sacred historian said that "Then _men_ began to call," would, in conjunction with the original Hebrew text, have compelled them to a different rendering from the one they adopted. But, believing as they did, that it was some of _Adam's race_, then called _men_, they stumbled on a translation that _not one_ of them has been satisfied with since they made it. The propriety of this assertion in regard to antecedents _controlling_ the proper rendering, will be readily admitted by all scholars. The rendering, therefore, of the exact _idea_ of the sacred historian, would be this: "Then _men_ began to profane the Lord by calling on his name." This is required by the _Hebrew_, and the antecedent facts certainly demand it; otherwise we would falsify the Bible, as Adam and his sons had been calling on the Lord ever since the fall; therefore, the men referred to, that then _began_ to call, could not be Adam, nor any of his sons. This logic of facts compels us to say that it was the negro, created before Adam and by him _named man_, for there were no other _men_ on the earth. That the calling was profane, is admitted by all of our ablest commentators and Biblical scholars, as may be seen by reference to their works. See Adam Clark, _et al._ The Jews translate it thus: "Then men began to profane the name of the Lord."

But we have this singular expression in the Bible, occurring about the flood: That it repented the Lord that he had made _man_ on the earth, and that it _grieved him at his heart_. Now, it is clear that God could not refer, in these expressions, to Adam as the man whom it repented and grieved him that he had made; for Adam was a part of himself, and became so when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul, immortal, and must exist, _ex consequentia_, as long as God exists. God can not hate any part of himself, for that would be perfection hating perfection, and Adam did partake of the divine nature to some extent; and therefore the _man_ here referred to could not have been Adam's posterity; and must have been, from the same logic of facts, the _man_, negro, the beast, called by God, _man before he created Adam_. Now, it must have been some awful crime, some terrible corruption, that could and did cause God to repent, to be grieved at his heart, that he had made man. What was this crime? what this corruption? Was it moral crimes confined to Adam's race? Let us see. It was not the eating of the forbidden fruit; for that had been done long before. It was not murder; for Cain had murdered his brother. It was not drunkenness; for Noah, though a preacher of righteousness, did get drunk. It was not incest; for Lot, another preacher of righteousness, committed that. It was not that of one brother selling his own brother as a slave, to be taken to a strange land; for Joseph's brethren did that, and lied about it, too. It was not--, but we may go through the whole catalogue of moral sins and crimes of _human_ turpitude, and take them up separately, and then compound them together, until the whole catalogue of _human_ iniquity and infamy is exhausted, and then suppose them all to be perpetrated every day by _Adam's race_, and as they have been _before_ and _since_ the flood, still we would have but one answer, and that answer would be, It _is none of these, nor all of them combined_, that thus caused God to repent and be grieved at his heart, that he had made _man_; but add one more--nay not _add_, but take one crime alone and by itself--one _only_, and that crime Adam's children, the sons of God, amalgamating, miscegenating, with the _negro--man--beast, without soul--without the endowment of immortality_, and you have the reason, _why_ God repented and drowned the world, because of its commission. It is a crime, _in the sight of God_, that can not be _propitiated_ by any sacrifice, or by any oblation, and can not be forgiven by God--_never_ has been forgiven on earth, and never will be. Death--death inexorable, is declared by God's judgments on the _world_ and _on nations_; and he has declared death as its punishment by his law--death to both male and female, without pardon or reprieve, and beyond the power of _any_ sacrifice to expiate.

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, 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 relieves us of all doubt as to _who_ was meant as the _men_ of whose daughters the sons of God took their wives, independent of the preceding irrefragable 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 negroes. Nimrod was the first on earth who began to monopolize power and play the despot: its objects we will see presently. _Kingly power_ had its origin in love for and association 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 multitude 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 destroyed 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 committing 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 "for all beasts, cattle," etc., "are delivered into thy hands." The negro, as already shown, was put into the ark with the beasts, and came out of it along with them, as one. If they went into the ark by sevens, as is probable they did, from being the head of the beasts, cattle, etc., then their populating power would be in proportion to the whites--as seven is to three, or as fourteen is to six; and Nimrod _must_ have resorted to them to get the multitude that he assembled on the Plain of Shinar; for the Bible plainly tells us where the other descendants of Noah's children went, including those of Nimrod'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 evidently _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 prevent this _concentration_ of power and numbers, that God confounded their language, broke them into bands, overthrew their tower, stopped the building of their city, and scattered or dispersed them over the earth.

Let us now ask: Was not their tower 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.