Chapter 3

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."