Ham, if their theory be true, from a white man, to a black negro. If the curse, were capable of effecting such results, it is to be found in the word curse, and not in the words, that a servant of servants should he be, as he and his descendants could, as readily be servants, white as black, and he was already white, and no necessity to make him black, to be a servant. If this effect on Ham, is to be found in the word curse, it will then be necessary, for the advocates of the assumption, to show, that such were its usual results, whenever that word was used; for unless such were its common effects, when used by God himself, by men of God, by patriarchs and by prophets, then we ask, on what grounds, if any there be, it is, that they assert, that it did produce this effect, in this instance, by Noah on Ham and his descendants? We do not question or doubt, that Canaan, was denounced in the curse, pronounced by Noah, that he should be a servant of servants; but whether Ham or Canaan alone is meant, is not material to the questions at issue, except in this view; but the advocates of such being its effect, must show, that such, at least was its effect previous to, and after Noah used it; and if they fail in this, that necessarily, this part of their argument is also a total failure. Let us look into the Bible. God cursed our first parents. Did this curse kink their hair, flatten their skulls, blacken their skin and flatten their nose? If it did, then Noah was sadly mistaken and these gentlemen too, in supposing that it was Noah's curse, that accomplished all this, for it was already done for the whole race—and long before, by God himself. God cursed the serpent. Did the curse produce this effect on him? He cursed Cain—did it affect his skin, his hair, his forehead, his nose or his lips? These curses were all pronounced by God himself and produced no such effects. But we proceed and take up the holy men of God, the patriarchs and prophets, and see what their curses produced. Did the curse of Jacob, produce this effect on Simeon and Levi? did it produce this effect on the man who would make a graven image? did it produce this effect on the man who would rebuild Jericho? did it produce this effect on those, who maketh the blind to wander out of the way? did it produce this effect on those, who perverteth the judgment of the stranger, the fatherless and the widow? Cum multis aliis. It did not. But if it did produce this effect in these cases, then when we read, that Christ died to redeem us from the curse, are we to understand, that he died to redeem us from a kinky head, flat nose, thick lips and a black skin? But such curses, never having produced such effects, when pronounced by God, by patriarch, by prophet, or by any holy man of God before or since, then we inquire to know, on what principles of interpretation, grammar or logic it is, that it can so mean in this case of Noah? There are no words in the curse, that express, or even imply such effects. Then in the absence of all such effects, following such curses, and as they are narrated in the Bible, whether pronounced by God or man; and there being nothing in the language beside to sustain it, and if true, Ham's posterity must be shown now, as its truthful witnesses, from this, our day, back to the flood or to Ham; and which can not be done—and if this can not be done, then all arguments and assertions, based on such assumptions, that Ham was the father of the negro or black race, are false; and if false, then the negro is in no sense, the descendant of Ham; and therefore, he must have been in the ark, and as he was not one of Noah's family, that he must have entered it in some capacity, or relation to the other beasts or cattle. For that he did enter the ark is plain from the fact, that he is now here, and not of the family or progeny of Ham. And no one has ever suspicioned either Shem or Japheth of being the father of the negro; therefore he must have come out of the ark, and he could not come out, unless he had previously entered it; and if he entered it, that he must have existed before the flood, and that, too, just such negro as we have now, and consequently not as a descendant of Adam and Eve; and if not the progeny of Adam and Eve, that he is inevitably a beast, and as such, entered the ark, though having the form of man, and man he is, being so named by Adam. Such is the logic, and such are the conclusions to which their premises lead, if legitimately carried out; and by which it is plainly seen, that the position assumed by the learned of the present and past ages—that the present negroes are the descendants of Ham, and were made so by his name, or by the curse of his father—is false in fact, and but an unwarranted assumption at best. But while this conclusion is inevitable, it also reveals to us another sad fact, that the good men of our own race (the white), though learned and philanthropic, exhibit a weakness, alas! too common in this our day, that anything they wish to believe or think will be popular, that it is very easy to convert the greatest improbabilities into the best grounds of their faith. The word used by God, used by patriarch and by prophet, is the same word used by Noah. If the word thus used by God, and by holy men, did not produce the effect as is charged by these men, how can the same word, when used by Noah, do it? And yet, on these assumptions, the faith of more than half the world seems to be now based. To expose these cobweb fabrics, called by some reason, on this subject, and Christian philanthropy by others, in which are involved, such tremendous conclusions, for weal or for wo, of so large a portion of the biped creation, that we feel like apologizing to our readers, for answering such learned ignorance, blindness or weakness. But the meaning of Ham's name in Hebrew is not primarily black. Its primary meaning is: 1. Sunburnt; 2. swarthy; 3. dark; 4. black—and its most unusual meaning.

Having now disposed of these fancies, for they are nothing better, of the effects of Ham's name, and Noah's curse, in making him a negro; and having examined them, for the purpose of allowing on what flimsy grounds this mightiest of structures of air-built theories rests, and for this purpose only, as what we have said about them is not connected with, nor germain to the way we intend to pursue, in investigating the questions forming the caption to this paper. But having now disposed of them, we take up our own subject. The reader will bear in mind the description we have given respectively of the white and black races.

The first question to which we now invite attention is: Do the characteristics which we have given of the white race, belong equally, to all three of the sons of Noah—Shem, Ham and Japheth, and their descendants? If they do, then the black race, belong to, and have since the flood at least, belonged to another and totally different race of men.

Now to our question: Do the characteristics, which we have given of the white race, belong equally to the three sons of Noah and their descendants alike? We will begin with Noah himself first. The Bible says of Noah, that he was perfect in his generation. We will not stop to criticise the Hebrew translated "generation," for any English scholar on reading the verse in which it occurs, will see at once, that to make sense, it should have been genealogy. Then Noah was perfect in his genealogy—he was a preacher of righteousness—he was the husband of one wife, who was also perfect in her genealogy; by this one wife, he had three sons, all born about one hundred years before the flood, and all three of them married, before the flood, to women who