NE GR Q S O RIGIN :

IS TH E NEGRO CU RSED ?

BY 13 . T . T A N NE R .

PH IL AD ELP H IA
AF R I CAN M E
. . BOO$ I R
D EP OS TO Y,

63 1 P IN E S T R E E T .
 T H IS L IT T L E P A M P H L E T

@ w fi fim mfi
T O T I
EI E—
N E G -
BO ,

$ H OSE MA NHO OD
GE N N E IT E E R BE D ES TH Q Y E D

BY THE

RU S T O F BA R BA R IS M
‘ ,

NOB TH E
.

F IR E S O F P E R S E C U T IO N .
 LETTER FROM I
SHOP CAMP ELL B B .

RE$ . BT
. . TANN ER .

D e ar Sir — Allow
. me to s ay , hat
t alth ou gh I
h ad n ot h ough t of $ ritin g an In trodu ction to y ou r
t
fo rth c omin g Pa mp h le t upon th e Ne gro s Origin an d
,
’
,

Is th e Ne g r o Cu rs e d ? y e t I had th ough t of w ri tin g

“ ”

an a rt i cl e w h i c h you migh t u s e w i th oth e rs of th e s a m e

k in d an d th u s h e lp fo r w a r d th e c irc ul atio n of your
,

littl e w o r k Afte r s e e i ng you r n oti c e in th e Ch ris tian

.

Re c o r d e r I s uppo se d that you w e r e n o t w a i tin g fo r me

,

to a cc e p t th e i nvita tio n you h a d give n me to w ri te

th e In tr o d u c tio n .

An d n o w you m u st a llo w me to de c lin e w ri tin g an

In tro d u c tio n To w rite a p rop e r Intr o d u c tio n to a w o r k
.

afte r th e midd l e of th e n i n e te e nth c e ntu r y a m an ,

ough t to b e w e ll poste d n ot o nly as to th e lite ra ry

,

m e ri ts of th e w o rk i ts e lf b u t als o as to th e s tr e n gth of
, , $

th e a rgum e n ts p r o d u c e d a g a ins t it by oppo s in g th e o ri es .

As t o th e li te r a ry abili ty o f you r fo rth c omin g Pa m

p h l e t I a m pos te d ; b ut as to th e stre ngth of th e a rgu
,

m e n ts of m an y ve ry m an y oppos i n g th e o ri es I am n o t
—
,

e x a c tly po s te d I mu s t have t im e to c omp a r e you r

.

n otes w i th o th e rs w h o oppos e b e fo re I w o ul d b e pre

, ,

p are d to re nd e r a d e c is ion w h i c h I w oul d b e w illin g to

,

have go for th to th e w o rl d in book fo rm to p ass d o w n ,

to our po s te ri ty .

To s ay that I h ave re a d n o thin g an d th ough t n o th i n g ,

upo n th e s ubj e ct w oul d b e ve ry fa r fro m th e tr uth b u t

,

1 *
vi N RODU CTIO N
I T .

to s ay hat I a m p re p a re d to d e fe n d all th e ar gu
t
m e n ts w h i c h you have p ro d u c e d i n oppos i tio n to th e ,

c ommo nl y r e c e ive d opin io ns w oul d b e s ay in g w hat is

,

n o t th e tru th .

$ h e n you fi rs t na m e d th e s ubj e c t of w ri ti n g an Intr o

d u c tion upo n r e $e ctio n of th e s u bj e ct I th ough t it
, ,

w oul d b e a goo d i d e a fo r s om e o n e to w r i te an In tr o
,

d u cti on fo r a s e c o nd e d itio n of th e w o rk i n w h i ch y ou ,

w oul d have a c han c e t o e n l ar g e and th e p a rt y in tro d u ,

c in g w oul d have a c han ce t o e x a mi n e th e s ou r ces of

pr oof w h i c h you have intr o du ce d B
, ,

y tha t m e an s you r .

w o r k mig h t n ot have o n ly a tr ans i e n t e x is te n c e b u t it ,

m ig h t po s s ibly fi n d a pl a c e a mo n g th e fe w w o r ks that
p ass d o w n fr om ge ne ratio n to g e n e ratio n An d s u c h I .

des i re to b e th e goo d fo rtu n e of you r w o rk .

A l s o I h op e i n time to add s om e th i n g to th e c o mm o n
,

s to ck fo r w h i c h c a use I c o n fes s tha t I have to e x e rc is e

, ,

a little c a utio n about w hat I s ay an d w hat I d o .

I a m you rs truly ,

J P CAM P BE L L
. . .

P S . . u al re a dy b e a w a re of th e fa c t that
Y ou m st ,

in my tr ave ls I have n o ac cess to lib r a ries w h e n aw ay

, ,

fr om my h om e ; a n d that I a m c o ns tantly p re a ching

and d oi ng Ch u rc h bus i ness U nd e r s u ch c i rc um s tan c es
.

it w oul d n o t b e po ss ibl e fo r an inte llige n t m an to

w r i te an i n te llig e nt In tr o d u c tio n to a B
,

ook I a m w ill .
‘

i n g to he lp o th e rs w h e n I ca n r e ally he lp the m a n d
, ,

he lp , or a t le as t d o no ha rm to mys e lf at the s a me time .

$ h e n I c an w rite an In tr o d uctio n fo r you that w ill ,

m ak e th e p e opl e c all fo r a w o r k from m e fr o m w hat

‘

th e y se e i n t ha t In tr o d u c tio n I w ill th e n d o,
it .

J P C
o . .
l

1 8 1 0 Addis on St , Pa
$

.
THE NEGRO S ORIGIN ’

’
E T us sea rch p u th e
Neg r o s o r igin .

The inhabitants of the pos t diluvian

wo rld find thei r pate rnity in Noah fr om ,

w h ose loins spran g Shem and Ham and , ,

Japheth Shem in the Hebrew signifies re

.
,
”
n ow n or a rea t n a me Ham o r Cham
, g .

“
signifies w a rm o r ho t D r Hale says
. .
,
“
b la ck : J aph e th o r Ye ph e th e x a n d in
p , g ,
”
w id e ly sp rea d in g
.

A cc ording to c ommon c h r onology Mo s es ,

w rote eight hundred an d fi fty seven year s -

afte r t h e $ood and these are the n ames whi c h

,

he gives to the patriarc hs The question is .

,

D id the fathe r s nam e th eir des c endants ? o r

did t h e des ce ndan ts nam e th e fath e rs ?
 ’
8 TH E NEGRo s ORIGIN .

F r om the age in whi ch Moses lived and

w r ote as well as from the spirit of illumina
,

tion w hich was in h im he knew the c hannels

,

into which the three great tides of h uman

ity $owed and he doubtless named the
sour c es of the mac c ordingly .

The father of his own r a c e to whom the ,

bles s ing of re n o w n o r mas te rs h ip had been

given and which in a measure he already
,

saw in the grandeur of the nations beyond the

E uphrates he called Shem : the fathe r of the
,

r ace u pon whom the blessing of e n la rgeme n t

was to c ome and which already began to
,

have a fulfillment in the tribes of Japhet h

wandering to the expan s ive North west he -
,

c alled Japheth or Ye ph e th : the fathe r of the

black ra c e that he s aw inhabiting the hot
Peninsula he named Ham o r Cham In .

keeping with our idea he named the father of ,

that race whose propheti c servitude was about

to c ommence Canaan fo r he shall bow the
, ,

knee .
*

Moses gazed upon the des c endants of Ham

and lo $ they w ere all bla c k and he named ,

their progenitor a cc ordingly To s uppose .

that Ham was really bla c k is to suppo s e such

,

a freak as nature has neve r re c eived the

G fi nds the r o o t o f t hi s w o r d i n y)
i
e sen u s
; b d h k
to en t e nee.
 9
’
TH E NEGRo s ORI G IN .

credit of performing Albinos may indeed .

S pring from blacks but we have never re ad ,

of blac ks springing from other than negro

sto c k Ham w as no more bla c k than
.
,

J a ph e th was white ; each doubtle s s w a s of a

r uddy o r c lay colo r which is u ndoubtedly the ,

normal *
Both white and blac k are extreme
.

c olors .

Those O rientals alone who live within a fe w ,

degrees north of 4 0 N and a few degrees °

south Of 8 0 N th e lo c ality doubtle s s of

— °

their creation have maintained their normal ,

c olor Those tribes who strayed northward

.
,

brightened ; those who strayed southward ,

blackened This is the fac t presented to ou r

.

gaze to day The r eason whereof whethe r

-
.
,

of heat or cold whethe r of c ondition or usage , ,

we leave fo r others to de c ide .

What are the evidences that Ham and his

descendants peopled Afri c a ? We speak fir st
of Ham .

I E viden c es scriptural and histori c al of

.
, ,

Ham going into Afri c a .

( )
a Scriptural eviden c e .

“
And smo te the fi rs t bo rn in E gypt the -
,

aTh fi r t m an was c ll ed m s
e s A dam T h i w ord den o t s i
a 1 e.
, . s e n

Scri pt r e uA m “
h m b i g m l
a n,
f
a m l u T hean r o o t o
e n f i
, t a e or e a e.

i d r d dy
“
a nd n do b ted l y a pp li ed t o m an b
”
s
n t , b to e re ,
u , w as u u e

ca u se f h i s r d d i ness o r c l ay c olo r fo r in H ebre w all n m es a r e

o u , , a

d en o t t iv e
a .
10
’
T HE NEGRo s O R I GI N .

chief of their strength in the land of Ham .

P s lxx v iii 5 1 . .

Is rael al s o came into E gypt and Jac o b ,

soj ourned in the land of Ham P s cv 2 3 .

”
. . .

They forgat God their Saviou r whi c h had

done great thing s in E gypt ; wondrous works
in the land of Ham and terri b le things by ,
”
the Re d Sea P s c vi 2 1 2 2
.
— . . .

6
( ) Hi s torical evidence .

We are told that Ham was a domesti c name

fo r E gypt and u s ed by the E gyptian s them
,

*
s elve s anterior to the a dve nt of the Hebrews .

I n Pl u tarch E gypt is c alled Uh e mia An .

c ie n tly there were cantons in E gypt d e n o m i

n a te d P s itt a Ch e mmis P s o Ch e m mis

-
I n these ,
.

name s the word Cham o r Ham is easily dis

c erned .

Herodotu s in Book I$ Melpomene speaks

,
.
,

of Am mo n ia ns or Ha mmon ia n s a s keepers of ,

the temple of Theban Jupite r in Afri c a .

Rollin deeply learned in North Afri c an

,
“
lore say s
,
Ham was the se c ond s o n of
,

Noah When the family of the latter

.

di s per s ed them s elves into different c ountries ,

Ham retired to Africa ; and it doubtle s s was

he who afte r w ards was worshipped as a
,

god unde r the name of Jupite r Amman o r

,
-

”
Ha m mo n P iii $ of E
. . . . .

’f
f S ee G e s e n iu s m3 .
 11
’
THE NEGRo s O R I GI N .

It impossible to ac c ount fo r these marks

is ,

Scriptural and hi s torical on any other h ypoth ,

es i s than the presence of Ham in A frica

,
.

No othe r c ontinent claims him NO other con .

tin e n t pre s ents the impress of h is feet The ‘

.

impre s s is genuine it is original let due cre

dence be given .

II E vidences S c riptural and hi s torical of

.
,
.

the sons of Ham going into Africa .

A
( ) Cush. is understood to have gone into
E thiopia I n Scripture whereve r thi s word
.

o cc urs with the exception of I s aiah xi 1 1 and

,
.
,

Hab iii 7 ; and the places where it denotes a

. .

e rs o n it is tran s lated E th iopia I f this be a

p ,
.

proper tran s lation the settlement of Cu s h in

,

Africa is a s sured for the geographical position

,

of Ethiopia is defined beyond controver s y I s

it a prope r tra n s lation ? That it is appear s ,

from the following c on s i d eration s .

( )
a The C u s h im descen d ed from Ham and ,

inhabited a hot south country Ham w a s in .

Africa and h is seed doubtles s s pread into the

,

hot c ountry of E thiopia .

6
( ) The C u s h im were black Can the .

”
E thiopia n o r Cushite c hange h is skin ? J er .

xiii 2 8
. .

( )
c The C u s h im we r e in c lose pro x imity
to the E gyptian s fo r the two are u niform ly
,
 ’
12 TH E NEGRo s O R IGI N .

coupled togethe r Se e I s ai x x 3 4 5 . . .
, ,

x liii 3 .Nah iii 9 ; Ps lxviii 3 1 et c

. . . .
,
.

( )
d I sai .
( x viii 2 de s cribes the Cu s h im as
. .

”
sending amba s sado rs in ve s s el s o f b u lru s h e s .

Bulru s h e s are pu rely an Afri c an or Niloti c

production .

( )
a The country Cu sh was en c ompassed
by the rive r Gihon And the name of the .

second river is Gihon the same is it that c om ,

”
pas seth the whole land of E thiopia o r Cu s h .

Gen ii 1 8 . D oe s not the Nile en c omp as s

. .

E thiopia ? The de c i s i ve question is I s the ,

Nile that Gihon to which Mo s es referred

I n defending the propo s itio n The Nile is the ,

Gihon ; it should be b orne in mind that such

que s tion s as the followi n g a re not to be
heeded : I f we thus affi rm will we not run ,

c ounte r to the Opinions of a va s t numbe r of

biblic al c riti c s ? o r I f we thus affirm will we , ,
’
not spoil the re fi n é d c onj e c tures of many ove r
c urious divines ? or I f we thus affirm will it , ,

not be impossible to fi n d even the vi c inity of

H er o d o t s sa y s i n reg ar d t o the m a ne r o f b ild i n g sh ip s

u , n u on

th e Nil e T hey d o n o t u se timb e r rt ifi c ially c a rv e d b t b in d th

,
“
a , u e

pl n k s t o g ethe r wi th the b ark f the h yb l s ( o r b l h ) m d e in to

a o a u ru s a

” a le t a as as
rc pe s . a a s
a

Th y h a e i mm e n se n umbe r s f th e vesse l s
e v o es , an d so m e of th em of

th e bur den o f m n y tho us n d tal en ts E t p

a a .
”
u er e, x vic .
 O RIGI N 13
’
TH E NEGRo s .

the spot of man s firs t j oys and h is fir s t sor ’

r ow s as well ? He who searche s for truth h a s

littl e to do with con s equences which often ,

stand like spectre s to frighten m e n from their

hone s t pur s uits Such souls ha v e recei v ed th e .

”
command Go forward and nought remain s
, ,

but to obey The si n gle que s tion here to be

.

entertaine d is Did Mo s e s mean by the Gihon , ,

h is o w n familiar Nile ? A common rule of

critici s m is tha t an author m u s t explain him
,

self though it be to the confu s ion of all

j udge s and commentator s Let Mo s es then .
‘

interpre t Mo s es Th is is the more neces s ary .

,

when we con s ide r that afte r him 5 0 0 year s ,

elap s e d b e fore another Scripture write r men

tion s the word Gas h Job indeed mention s it ,
.
,

but h is era is un c ertain The first after Moses .

w a s undoubted ly Da vid f I f we credit the

f
'

generation s of the s e 5 0 0 years with the same ,

curio s ity w e ours e lves po s s e s s how w ere they ,

to s ati s fy them s elves with regard to the geo

graphical po s ition o f the lan d encompas s ed by
the Gihon ? M u st they not lear n it from other

* Bl ack to n ay s
s nt rpr t i n g l an g ag e i n l aw
e s ,
“
In i e m th o d
e u ,
one e

o f i n t rpr tat io n i b y c o m pa r i o n o f o ne l aw w i t h ot h r l aw wh ic h
e e s s e s

a re m ad b y the e m l e gi l at or and h a v s o m
sa e fii ity t o th
s , e e a n e

s bj e c t
u .
”

T P s l x
. vii i 3 1 . .

2
 ’
14 TH E NEGRo s ORI GI N .

portions of the Mosai c r e c ord ? or e ls e m u s t

'

they not remain ignoran t ? E ven so mu s t we

learn from Moses the position of that Cu s h
which the Gihon en c ompas sed One may s ay .

that the common knowledge of the earth with ,

the po s itions of the several people s a s well ,

would e nable tho s e generations to under s tand

the po s i tion of C u s h So let it be and does n o t
.
,

that common knowledge a s han ded down by

tradition point w ith a steady finge r towards
,

African E thiopia ?
I n what sense does Moses u s e the word
{ff13 i e Cas h and its compound s
-

. . I t app e ars
in his writings in the following place s : Gen .

ii 1 3 ; X 6 7 8 ; Numb X ii I In the
. .
, ,
. . .

first of the s e Gen ii 1 3 it is u s ed as the

,
. .
,

name of a country And the name of the

se c ond river is Gihon the same is it that com
,
”
pas s eth the whole land of E thiopia or Cu s h .

Where is that land ? To which one of the

three great c ontinents shall we look ? Might
we not po s s ibly fi n d a ray of light in the name
it bear s ; kno w ing that in an c ient times cities
and lands were invariably named afte r men
After whom was the land of Cu s h o r E thiopia
named ? Is there given us the name of su c h
an individual ? and is it probable that he was
the fi rst possesso r of that land and enj oyed ,
 15
’
TH E NEGRo s ORI GI N .

the pre r ogative of naming it ? I n Gen x 6 . .

,

the very next place where the word is met it ,

“
denotes a person And the sons of Ham
.
,
”
Cush and Mizraim Phut and Canaan ,
Cu s h .

a s o n of H a m No othe r individual of the

.

same nam e is mentioned in all the Scripture .

Must we not conclude that if the land of Cush

was named afte r an individual as it most u n ,

doubtedly was that i ndividual was C u s h the

, ,

s on of Ham ? Here then we have a first

glimpse of the geographi c al po s ition of that
land Ham w as in Afri c a ; the increa s e of h is
.

descendants made it necessary for them to

spread abroad C ush the eldest took up the
.
, ,

march firs t and penetrated the hot south

,

c ountry and his grateful progeny c alled it

,

Cu s h .

I n Numb X1 1 1 where a c ompound of the

. .
,

word Cush is used and which denotes a ,

woman of the land a Cushite m ore and , ,

stronge r light is afforded u s to s e e the real po

“
sitio u of the land We read there . And ,

Miriam and Aaron spoke against Mo s e s b e

cau s e o f the E thiopian woman (or Cu s hi te)
whom he had married fo r he had m arried an ,
”
E thiopian woman D id this Cu s hite woman
.

belong to that land of Cush which Mo s es had

p reviously mentioned and which was e n co m ,
 6
’
TH E NEGRo s ORI G I N .

passed by the Gihon ? D id those German

women of whose virtue Tacitus wrote belong
,
‘
,

to that Germany previously mentioned and ,

w ho s e confines were en c omp as sed by the

Rhine Moses mus t interpret Mo s es even as ,

Tacitus mu s t interpret T a c itus The Cu s hite .

woman mu s t be an inhabitant of the only land

of Ca s h which Moses mentioned as the Ger
, ,

man women must be inhabitants of the only

Germany T acitu s mentioned Let u s examine .

thi s matter more fully The Cushite woman .

whom Moses married when c e came she ? ,

Mo s es mu s t have married her either in E gypt ,

o r in his tramp through Arabia I f he .

married her in E gypt a s tradition says then , ,

may we kno w that he r country was c on

tigu o u s to E gypt and may safely settle d own ,

on E thiopia proper I f he married her while .

on the tramp through Arabia from among the ,

surrounding tribe s then must he have pas sed ,

through her c ountry This is the Opinion of .

many The question then re s ults in this

.
,

x viii
Ge r ma n ia .

N OTE $ ha v e a c ase exac tly s i m il a r t o th i s o f M o se i n the h i t ory

. e s, s

of H e r o d o t I n Book II E t rp he s pea k s o f th ri r I t r
u s. . u e e, e
v
e
“
s e

as co m m n ci n g at th city o f Pyr ne am o n g the C lt $o ws th ro g h

e e e ,
e ae , u

the c en tr o f E ro pe and e mpt i e it l f i nt o the E x i n

e u ,
‘
s $ h re se u e.
’
e

for e h asth $ t io n lo n g s i n c e b en s ttl ed that th i s I t r i s m o

e ues e e s e ou r

d e r n D an b e ? B e c a e the g ogr ap h i c al an d p o p l ar all s io ns o f

u us e u u

H ro d o t s d em n d i t H e r o d o tu s mu st d efi n e H e r o do t s Eve n s o
e u a . u .

hi o s e s .
 ’
18 TH E NEGRO s ORI G I N .

have eve r char a c teri z ed it ? F ollowing the

Hebrew idiom of naming thi ngs according to
t hei r quality what other name would b e s o
,
-

appropriate ? It is thus the anci ents have

univer s ally de c ided : Thus speaks the Se ptu a
gint thu s speaks J o s e ph u s rj I n the Ind ex ‘ ‘

Biblicu s of an authorized edition of the $ ulga te

“
we find thi s E th iop ia Af ricoe p rovin cia ea m
, , ,

c irc u mit lu viu s Ge h o n

f A fte ra m o s t thoroug h .
”

research Ge s e n iu s says By the river Gihon ,

mo s t probably the E thiopian Nile is to be n u

d e rs to o d whi c h does in fa c t surround E thi
,
”
opia . The identity of the Nile with the
Gihon c on c eded as well al s o from the othe r
,

proofs given the advent of C u s h into Africa

,

is a s s ured and the tran s lation of the word

, ,

Eth iop ia is fu lly j u s tified

,
.

B I n regard to the advent of the son

.

Mizraim into Africa the Scriptures speak mo s t ,

definitely I ndeed E gypt is there only known

.
,

by the name Mizraim The word being dual .

“
it h as been said of it Hen c e the dual ,
‘

Mizraim seems to have originally denote d

u per and lower Egypt Josephus says
p .
,
“
The memory also of the M iz raite s is pre
served in their name fo r all who inhabit this ,

J e r. ii . 1 8, S ong of Sirac h ,
xxi v . 27
.

TJ os . BI . .
, l, 3 .
 19
’
TH E NEGRo s ORI G I N .

c ountry (Judea ) c all E gypt, Mestre , and the

E gyptians M e s tre a n s f‘ c

Roll in says “
Mizraim settled in E gypt , ,

which is generally c alled in Sc ripture after h is

”
name And . is allowed to
be th e same with Menes whom all hi s torians ,
”
declare to be the firs t king of E gypt The .

ancient name remain s to this day among the

Arabian s who call E gypt M e s re Although ,

M B
,
.

.as n a ge h a s ventured to expre s s the

opinion that Mizraim was never in E gypt yet ,

are his footprints to o legible not to be de

c iphered .

Q
( ) As to the posterity of Phut settling in
Africa the evidence in Scripture is that he is
, ,

invariably j oined with h is brethren the Cush ,

ites Jeremiah xlvi 9 says

. Cush an d .
, ,
”
Phut that handle the shield E zekiel xxxviii . .

“ ”
says Per s ia Phut and Cu s h with them
, , ,
.

So al s o speak s the prophet Nahum Jo s ephu s .

S peak s a s fo llow s Phut al s o w a s the foun der “

of Ly b ia and c alled the inhabitants Ph u tite s

,

it
J o e. BI c hap v i
. .
, . .
Q2 .

NO TE . T he
ha v e a t rad i t i on that they a r e the de c e nd ants
F o u la h s s

o f P h t th s o n o f H a m
u , e .

$ h th r th i s t r ad i t io n b t r e o r n o t i t i s a s i n g l a r fa c t that th y
e e e u , u e

h a v pr fi xed th i s nam t o a l m o t e v ry d i t ric t o f an y extent wh ic h

e e e s e s

th y hav e e v e r occ pi d T hey hav e F t T

e u e n ear S en g a l F t
. u ar o rro , e : a a

Bo nd and F ta J allo n t the No rth Ea t f S i e rra L e o ne $ il

u u — o -
s o . s on s
’

$ t Af i
e s e rn p a g e 79 r ca , .
 ’
20 TH E N EG RO S O R I G I N .

from himself ; there is al s o a rive r in the

c ountry of the Moors whi c h bears that name ,

when c e it is that we may see th e greate st part

of the Gre c ian h istoriographers mention that
r ive r and the adj oining c ountry by the appel
lation of
Pliny and Ptolemy m ention pla c es in
North Afri c a c alled Ph te m ph u Ph te m pti , ,

Ph te m b u te whi c h Calm e t r egards as origi

,

nating in Phut F r om su c h eviden c es how

.
,

c ould the world es c ape from the c on clusion

to whi c h it has long sin c e c ome that Afri c a ,

was peopled by H am and his th r ee sons Cus h , ,

Mizraim and Phut

,
.

I t is signifi c ant that not a t r a c e of Canaan ,

neithe r in name nor c e r emony c an be found ,

on Afri c an soil This is inexpli c able ex c ept

.
,

upo n the r e c ognized hypothesis that he was

neve r there I t is true that in the days of
.

Athanasius many of the peoples of North

,

A frica claimed to have des c ended from the

Canaanites and their Puni c tongue is said to
,

h ave c onfi rmed thei r assertion But in that .

day E gypt had been greatly ove r run by not a

few of the Medite rr anean nations The native .

Hamites in that region par took largely of the,

blood of the invaders But these North Afri

.

t
a
J os . BI
. . vi . 2 .
 T H E N EG RO S ORI G I N 21
’
.

c ans ar e not Africans prope r any more than ,

the whites in Ameri c a are Americans proper .

The African of untainted blood the Hamite , ,

p ure and simple is found to

,
day on ly in the -

”
woolly headed negro as Watson expresses
-
,

it with a curl o f the lip Canaan in Africa is

,
.

an interloper Since the day that he was

.

ostra c i s ed by his kindred for his irreverent

c onduct to Noah and forbidden to follow them
,

to thei r new home lest they might partake of

,

his c urse Canaan has been to all truth an

,

A s iati c There it was he lived and there he

.
,

re c eived u po n his o w n pate the full weight of ,

that c urse which felled him to the earth and

, ,

ground him as a di s tinct people to dust But

, ,
.

let him if you will be accounted among the

, ,

Africans of to day s t ill is he not of the n e

-

groes fo r all Africans are not negroes though

, ,

all negroes are Africans .

To con c lude ; Africa is t h e land of Ham

the Nile is t h e Gihon E thiopia the land of ,

Cu s h To ente r into particulars as to the

.
,

precise period w hen the patriarch s migrate d

thi the r and the manner how with sub s e quent
, ,

de v elopments of government and society would ,

be impos s ible and c onj ecture s are u s eless

, .

Livi ng at this late day only the mountain out ,

lines o f histo ri c al fa c ts ar e seen Let this suf .

 ’
22 TH E NEGRO s ORI G I N .

fi ce .They are di s tin c tly drawn ; let us mount

the high ridges and travel backward but let ,

us not pre s u m e to look do w n into the vall e ys ,

fo r den s e fog will meet us No people n o w

.

exi s t who can trace more c learly their pate r

n it
y than the negro . The genealogical table of
the J e w written upon the skin of bea s ts has
,

perished but the genealogi c al table of the n e

,

gro written in his own flesh remains Ages

, ,
.

of s c ourging have not sufficed to erase it .

Writte n by the finge r of God it is more e n,

during than the stones of Sinai I t remains .

,

and will remain the badge of our s u ffering the ,

badge of our triu mph .

I
s THE NEGRO CURSED?

THE answe r to the question I s the Negr o

,

curs ed ? depend s altogethe r upon the

an s w e r given to the que s tion Is Ham
,

cur s ed ? If the N c achio c urs ing s were really

directed again s t Ham then m u s t h is negro
,

d e s cendant s prepare to take their fu ll share .

We acknowledge the validity of Noah s male ’

diction H is reputed intemperance a ffect s n o t

.

its force
’
. God s oracles are of h is o w n choos
ing and in no way c an they affect the me s s age
,

which they may deliver A tongue only is

.

need e d ; whethe r it be in the head of a stupid

as s
, a lu c re lo ving Balaam o r a drunken
-

Noah it is equally th e Lord s m outh piece

,
’
-
.

But the Scripture say s of Noah : And he “

23
 4 I S TH E NE GR O CU R S E D ?

awoke from his wine Sleep in v a riably pro .

duce s sobernes s and the probability is that

,

Noah w a s sober The c u rs es of Noah are

valid upon whom fell they Ham or Ca
—
,

naan ?
Thi s que s tion c annot be settled by consult
ing Je w i s h Talmud s nor Targum s nor any , ,

of the sayi n gs of the Rabbi s Nor can it be .

settled by consulting Chri s tian doctors an ,

cient or modern e s pecially the latte r for in

, ,

thi s c a s e it h a s been seen that e v e n the mo s t ,

pious are su s ceptible of Race fe e ling holding ,

with kith and kin be th e y right or wrong ,

.

Where may thi s matter be s ettl e d w h e re de

—
,

finitely and im partl ally an s w er the interroga

tory $ a s H a m cur s e d
,
O nly in the record
written by Mo s es If it cannot there be set .

tle d it mu s t forever remain un s ettled for all

, ,

other re cords are to be laid a s ide .

The whole account and the only account ,

gi v en is the follo w ing found in Gen ix , . .

1 8 27
— .

18 $ An d the s on s of No ah t h at w ent for th from the a rk w e r e S he m , ,

and H m and J ph th and H am i th fathe r o f C anaan

a ,
a e : s e .

1 9 T he the th r ee s o ns o f No ah and o f them w as th w h o l e

s e a re : e

ear t h ov er pr d s ea .

2 0 A d N o ah b e ga n t b a n h u s b an d m a n an d he p l anted a
n o e ,
i v n eJ

y a r d
2 1 A d he d r an k of t h e w in e
n d d ru n k en
, an d h e w as
w as an u n co v

e r e d w i th in h i s tent .
26 I S TH E NE GR O CU R S E D ?

t he guilty party else the whole story go es fo r,

nought Ha v ing acknowledged the di v inity

.

’
of Noah s malediction it will not do to s up ,

o s e Canaan to be gu ilty ; we mu s t kn o w it at
p ;
lea s t ou r faith in t h e j u s tice of God will not
allow u s to question h is guilt for a m o ment .

God s cur s ing s are alway s proof po s iti v e of

’

guilt O ur every conc e ption of the D iv ine

.

character demands thi s He cur s e d and de .

stroy e d all th e ante dilu v ian world D o any -

.

doubt the ir guilt ? He cur s ed and de s troyed

Sodom D o any doubt its guilt ? Are not all
.

H is cur s ing s su ffici e nt guarantees of guilt ?

,

We know a portion of the angel s sinned ,

simply beca u s e they were not allowed to keep

their firs t e s tate A Christian want s no bette r
.

proof I t is thus with Canaan We know he

. .

w a s the guilty party becau s e he was cursed ; ,

and we know he w as the o n ly guilty party

, ,

becau s e he w a s the only party curs ed That .

he w a s cur s ed none pretend to d eny ; that he

w a s not the o n ly per s on cursed n one can af ,

firm But if Ham w a s c ur s ed by rea s on of

.

guilt why should the whole burden of it

,

fall on Canaan ? Why should Cu s h an d ,

Mizraim and Phut go scot free ? If some

,

transcriber h a s blundered and w ritten Canaan

when he should have written Ham then j us ,
 I S TH E NE GR O CU R S E D ? 27

tice demands all his seed to take a share ; and

not the youngest and weakest bear the whole
burden .

b
( ). The Script u res say again And Noah ,

kn e w what his younge r s o n had done unto

”
him . That younger {3 was Canaan and not ,

Ham as we hope to be able to prove Ham

,
.

w as not his younger son as Scri pture plainly ,

informs u s in Gen vi 8 2 ; v 1 0 ; X 1 ; and

,
.
-

. . .

1 Chron i 4 . . .

A fundamental rule of Scripture is to name

children in the orde r of their birth I t would .

be u s eless to multiply instances No r is thi s .

r u le ever departed from $ ithout an apparent

rea s on The sons of Noah are enumerated in
the parts of Scrip ture j ust designated and in ,

each the well known r ule is obse rved the

-
,

familia r Shem Ham and Japheth is read

, ,
.

Strong indeed m u s t be the proof that de

mand s u s to break such c onclus ive te s timony .

I n r e gard to Ham there is not th e least te s ti

mony o ffered save that founded on the a s
,

s u mp tion that he is the party c urs ed ; an ar

ume n t a t i i of the mo t shiftless kind
g p o s e r o r s .

In r e gard to Sh e m and to Japheth doubts ,

m ay ari s e from the fact that in the ge n e alo ,

i cal table of Noah s de s cendant s recorded in

’

g
1 Chron i the c hildre n of Japheth ar e
. .
28 I S TH E NE GR O CU R S E D ?

given first tho s e of Shem las t ; b u t Ham

, ,

keep s h is middle pla c e al s o in Gen x 2 1 we . .

“
rea d And Shem
,
the brother o f J a —

h e th the elder The word rendered elder

p .

here m ay indeed relate to seniority of birth ;

,

but its primary and cu s tomary signification is

g re a t of which ,
multiplied instance s c ould
be produced Without extreme license the
“
de claration could be tran s lated — Japheth ,
”
who is (to be ) great See Ge s en § 1 0 7 . . .

But why meddle with J aph e th ? Need s he a

defen s e they are named legion who can give
,

it O ur bu s ine s s is with Ham ; to see to it

.

that he be not di s placed from his M IDD L E

po s ition Scripture awar ds it Let no robbe r
. .

hand e ffa c e it *
.

We have thus seen from plain Scriptural

declaration that Ham was n o t the younge r
i; We now pro c eed to show that Canaan w as .

The Hebre w rendered by $ ing Jame s ’

“
tran s lators h is younger son is T D H 133
I
P , I
.

With the translation given in the pre s ent

22? Dr Adam Cl ark ay H m
. c er tai n ly the y g t o f N o ah
s s, a w as oun es ,

and fr om w hat w e r ad C ha p i x 2 2 th e r t o f th m ; and h ow h

. .
, e w o s e e

c m es t o b m enti on ed t o f h i s nat ra l o r de r i s n o t eas y t o b

o e ou u e ac

c o n t d for
u e .
”

T he D h r e den i es a p l a i n statem ent o f S cri p t re an d the n

r
. e u , ac

k n o w l d ges that h c ann o t a cc o nt for h i

e e pp i t i u L ik e s ,
ow n su os on. a

goo dly p ar t o f the D c o mm ents th i s w as wri tte n nd e r pr e io u sly

r s.
’
, u v

c o n c e i e d p i n i on
v O .
 I S TH E NEG RO C U R SE D ? 29

text an open c on $ict is the r esult Ac c ord

,
.

ing to the ranking of the sons a s given in Gen .

v 3 2 ; vi 1 0 ; x 1 ; 1 Chron 1 4 Japheth is
. .
— . .
,

th e youngest s o n ; but that Japheth was not

th e transgresso r is too apparent to need argu
ment How then can this plain contradiction
.

be harmonized how translate this Hebrew s o

—

as to meet the demands of truth and yet har ,

‘

m o n iz e the text ? Can it be done ? I t most

c e rtainly can The Hebre w words denoting
.
,

r elationship have a very wide latitude

,
The .

w ord 3 $ tran s lated fat he r in Gen x ix 3 1 ”

. .
,

as well as in innu merable other places is ,

“
translated a grand father
,
in Gen xxviii -

, . .

“
1 8 8 1 : and
— great grand father in Num -

, .

xviii 1 2 The word EN whose u s ual s ign i

.
— .

“ ”
fi c atio n is mother is tran s l ated grand ,
”
mother 2 $ ing s xv 1 0 F723; brother s ig
,
. .
,

“
n ifi e s al s o a relative kin s man members of
, , ,
”
the same tribe even a fe llow co untryman ,
-
.

”
I t is thus with the noun [ 3 son Standard .

“
authority says The word s on like tho s e of
, , ,

father and brother is employed by the H e ,

”
brews in various other and wide s en s e s In .

Gen xxix 5 Laban is called the s o n of Nahor

. .
, ,

when he really was grandson to the Patri

arch I n Gen xxxi 2 8 grand c hildren are
. . .
,
-

denoted b y the same te rm as also in ve rse ,

3 34
30 is TH E NEG RO C U R SE D ?

5 5th of the same Chapter I n E z r a v 1 the . .

,
“
prophet $echariah is said to be the son of
”
I ddo when $echariah himse lf de clare s he
,
”
was his grand son -
.

The same word has even a wide r s ign ifi ca

tion The plural of it uniformly denote s pos
.

”
te rity descendant s
,
I n the use of all these
.

nouns of relation s hip the facts of the c ontext ,

must define thei r limit ; they themselve s ar e

but general expres s ions of s o me kindred Apply .

this rule to Gen ix 2 4 and it will read— not

. .
,
“ ”
h is younger s o n but h is younger grand
,
”
s on . Thi s is perfectly allowable a s is shown , ,

while it give s harmony to the whole affair .

By reason of the puni s hment in $icted the crime

is fixed upon Canaan ; and this fact of the
.

c ontext fixes and define s the full s c op e of the

Hebrew Canaan w a s the younger grand
,

son as a matter of fact and word s mu s t eve r ,

a cc ord with facts But we would not have it

.

to be made read thus : let this take its part

with all oth er similar place s found in our ven
e ra b le translation J e t the c ontext explain
—

here as elsewhere .

But says one the offen s e is plainly declared

, ,

to have be e n committed by Ham We con .

tend that no o ffen s e can be proved from ver s e

“
22 And Ham the father of Canaan s a w the
, ,
 I S TH E NEG RO C U R SE D ? 31

n akedness of h is fathe r and told his two ,

brethren without .

Let us look at the in c iden ts r elated Noah .

h ad taken too freely of the j ui c e of the grape ,

and in c onsequence was dr u nk I n this c on .

'

dition h e made a n immodest exhibition o f

Et n a d a ta s in ta be rn a ca lo s a o
”
him s elf . .

N o w what was the action of the children and

,

g r andchildren of thei r aged sire ? crimina l

action ? Mos es d oes n o t eve n in tima te Ham .
,

de s iring to put an end to the reproachful ex

h ib itio n lo s es no time b u t hastens to inform
, ,

h is brethren But why did he not go him s elf

.

demand his accusers O n th e hypothe s i s that

the party c ur s ed was the one of guilt h is
, ,

c our s e of proceeding w a s the most n at ural in

the world The c onduct of Can aan is re ported
.

to him he goes to see fo r him s elf and his

, ,

worst fears are more than realized Ha ving .

in formed Shem and Japheth of the a ffair ,

he himself gi v es his attention to h is irre ve r

ent son while his brother s a s s ured of their
, ,
’
father s nudity go backward and cover him
,

with a mantle .

I f one will dive s t him s elf of prej udice no ,

blame can po s s ibly be attached to Ham by ,

rea s on of what is declared in thi s ver s e .

Mu s t not the c ondition of the father come to

32 I S TH E NEG RO C U R SED ?

the ear s of the sons by some one ? and mu s t

the bare fact of revealing the state of his
father in c u r guilt ? If s o w o be to the angel
, ,

mes s engers who c arry back to Heaven the

moral state of the world ; for the world lies
naked before God .

But Ham was n o t blessed as was Shem and

Japheth cries another accuser Be it s o
, . .

But he w as n o t curs ed neithe r was the bless

ing he received in c ommon with his two
brothers annulled In gratitude to Shem and
.

Japheth thei r ble s s i n g s are i n creased but

, ,

n o th in g is taken from Ham E xtra gifts do

‘

no t detract fro m tho s e given in common

‘
.

Shem and J aph e th were r ewarded fo r a

thoughtfulness and mode s ty which Ham in ,

the height of his indignation again s t Canaan

neglected to make man ife s t $ ery like indeed
;

is his c onduct to that of Mo s es at Meribah .

Both manifested to o much pas s ion But e v en .

in ascribing pa s sion to Ham it is to be taken

,

fo r granted that he was s ati s factorily made to

’
know his father s c ondition which c an neve r
,

be done F o r ought to the contrary some of

.

the child ren may have made c omplaint against

Canaan and like most parent s it was not
,

fully credited by his fathe r till he s aw fo r

h imself .
31 IS T H E NEG RO C U R SE D ?

of Ca n a a n Shall the unknown identify the

k n ow n ? Is it r e a s onable to sup po s e aye is , ,

it po s s ible that an ob s cure younger s o n could

id e n tify or de s ignate a father ; one of th e
four too sa v ed in the Ark ? I t is impos sible
, ,

save on the hypothe s is that he had done

so m ething by which h is name had become
,

spre ad abroad The follo w ing is not at all

.

di s s imilar in word an d S pirit : And the sons

of J o hn (Adam s ) that went forth into the
world were John Quincy Samuel Jo s iah and
, , ,

E b enezer and John Quincy (Adams ) is the

,

brothe r of E benezer .

Likewi s e in verse 2 2 Ham is again d e s ig ,

n a te d a s t h e father of Canaan Canaan m u s t .

have had a wide spread notorie ty ; and the -

qu e s tion pre s ents it s elf what had he done to ,

ach ie ve it ? He was the younge s t of four sons .

The younge s t do n o t u s ually have the greate s t

fame all things bei n g equal E ach of his
,
.

t hr e e brother s w e re men of spirit : not likely

to be over s hadowed by a younger brother in
d e ed s of moment E ach of them founded an
.

empire ; and living when the work of each is

done we are p r epared to s ay that Canaan was
,

the leas t likely to obtain an enviable fame of

all the Hamitic family Y e t Ham is not des .

ign a te d as the father of Mizraim ; though Miz

r aim was verily a prin ce he is not designated as
 I S T H E NEG R O C U R SE D ? 5

th e fathe r of Cu s h ; though Cu s h reigned ove r

Ethiopia a s Jo s e phu s say s ; he is not de s ignated
,

a s the fathe r of Phu t Wou ld Moses gi v e the

Is raelites and the world a clea r designation of
Ham he points him out a s the father of Ca
,

naan Neithe r Scripture nor tradi t ion give

.

the least intimation of C anaan ever figuring

in any capacity sa v e that of a criminal for “

which he w a s di s graced by h is brethren and ,

c urs ed of God .

b
( ) .A second indirect proof that Canaan is

the guilty party is the significant fact tha t he

,

did not accompany h is father and brethren to

Afri c a That he did not is one of the be s t e s
.

t ab lis h e d facts of history and tradition so

patent indeed is it tha t none pretend to a d vo
,

cate it The mo s t bitte r s lav e o cra t h a s been

.

compelled to a c knowledge it We go o u t of .

the regula r train of argument to say here that

the impo s sibility of locating Canaan in Africa ,

in no little mea s ure account s for the stro n n

ous determination which the same s lave o crats
hav e ever made to fix the crime on Ham ;
aye it a cc ounts for the ready acquie s cence
,

which many good men ga v e to the u nj u s t im pu

t atio n E ach of the s e cla s ses looked u pon the
.

su ffering negro ; the c on s cience of the one

upbraided him and he would fain sati s fy it by
,
36 I S TH E NEG RO C U R SE D ?

making him s elf believe that God had doomed

h is $ i cti m by an irrevocable c ur s e ; the
rea s on of the other thought that s u rely wher e
,

such pu ni s hment w a s in $icted there m u s t be

,

some occa s ion E ac h s a w that in some way

.

the father of the race was connected w ith a

divine curs e and though to him ind e finite it
, ,

yet gave s ati s faction s ati s faction to the con

—

science o f the one sati s faction to the reas on

,

of the other They saw not Canaan hitched

.

to thi s Juggernaut of torture and death ; they

imagined t h ey saw Ham .

The que s tion is Why did not Can aan and

,

his po s terity accompany the tribes of Ham

into Africa ? why this younger one remain ?
I n afte r year s the twel v e tribes of Jacob “

march ed up from E gypt nor was one left

—

b e hin d Why s hould not the four tribe s of

.

Ham m arch do w n ? The younge s t child is

mo s t g e nerally the pet the be s t belo ved
,
.

Jacob lo v ed Jo s eph better than all h is broth

”
ers becau s e he was the son of h is old age
,
.

Huma n n ature is one Where fore should

.

Ham l e ave thi s son of his old age behind ?

The whole affair is inexplicable without the ,

assumption that some sad transaction made it

necessary for them thu s to act This we find .

in the curs e pronoun c ed With this unde r

.

standing how natural does thei r course be c ome

 Is T H E NEG RO C U R SE D ? Q
0 7

how j ustifiable in fo r saking a brother aye in

, ,

co m e llin
p g him to remain behind These .

brethren had j ust experienced the wrath of

the curse of God had s een the $oods de s cend
—
,

had heard the fountains of the deep break up ,

had felt the mighty throes of the earth b e

n e ath the feet of their angered God and from ,

the great depths of their souls they sighed to

b e spared from another such visitation .

They could not doubt the propheti c dignity

of their father They knew h is voice made
.

known the will and mind of God and when , ,

in propheti c ecstacy they s aw the roll of his

eye and heard the muttering words Cursed be ,

Canaan they felt breaking a s under every tie

,

of union and de s tiny With one voice the

”
brothers said Arise let us go hence
, ,
.

We conclude ou r argument by giving a re

s a m e of thi s sad drama What is the part
.

acted by each — the definite part a s given in

the o nly credible account What is it ? with .

out imagination without supposition

,
The .

e rs o n oe of thi s drama are Noah a father and

p , , , ,

Shem Ham and J aph e th son s and Canaan a

, , ,

grand s on What is the par t acted by each ?

.

On the v e ry face of the account it is apparent

that all is not told O u r bu s ines s in con
.

cl u ding thi s argument is not to meddle with

38 IS THE NEG RO OH RS ED ?

the untold but to confine ourselves strictly to

,

what is given u s Noah played the part of

.

the drunkard Ham m akes kno w n his c o n

.

ditio n to h is brothers Shem and J aph e th Sh em .

and J aph e th with the most c ommendable mo

,

d e s ty cove r thei r father s shame and Canaan

’

, ,

is cursed Thus brie $y may the whole affair

.

be told The parts played by Noah Shem

.
, ,

and J aph e th are doubtless gi v en in full A

'

.
,

shade rests ove r the part enacted by Ham and

his s o n C anaan But as far as the action of
.

these t w o are given toward whi c h does the

,

account point as the guilty party ? What is

this ac c ount howsoeve r indefinite ? We have
,
’
already been told Ham r evealed his father s
c ondition and C anaan was c ursed We admit .

the blacknes s of the shade as here met yet peer ,

ing into it as fa r a s may be like blind Samson , ,

there is one pillar we may lay hold upon The .

part took by Ham is unce r tain the part took ,

by Canaan is uncertain but the Spirit of in

'

S pirati o n with whom there was no un c ertainty

, ,

pronounced the curse on Canaan $ and Ham

went free More con c lusive eviden c e may be
.

demanded by c uriosity but not by fait h ,

.

CANAAN cursed the negro is free the re

, ,

cipie n t of the common bles s ing prono unced

not by Noah under doubtful c ircumstance s ,

but by God Himself .