Buckner H. Payne.

The negro: what is his ethnological status? Is he the progeny of Ham? Is he a descendant of Adam and Eve? ... What is his relation to the white race? online

. (page 4 of 6)
Online LibraryBuckner H. PayneThe negro: what is his ethnological status? Is he the progeny of Ham? Is he a descendant of Adam and Eve? ... What is his relation to the white race? → online text (page 4 of 6)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

had created him? Most certaiidj he did not. This fact re-
lieves us of all <loubt as to who was meant as the men of
whose daughters the sons of God took their wives, inde-
pendent of the preceding irrefragible proofs, that it was the
negro ; and the crime of amalgamation thus committed,
brought the flood upon the earth. There is no possibility
of avoi<ling this conviction.

But this will be fully sustained as we advance. Cash was
Hairj'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 cind miscegenation with ne-
groes, Nimroil was the first on earth who began to monop-
olize power and play the despot: its objects we will see pres-
ently. Kingly poiver had its origin in love for and associa-
tion 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 ori^i-inator. In the Latin Vulojate,
Ezekiel xxxii : 30, plaiidy shows it. It was Nimrod that
directed and managed — ruled, if you please — the great mul-
titude 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 buildinor of the tower of Babel — a buildinir
vainly intended, by him and them, should reach heaven, and
thereby they would escape such a flood as had so recently de-
stroyed 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 com-
mitting the s'lme off'ense, 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 be-
ing the bead of the beasts, cattle, etc., then their populating
power w>uld be in proportion to the whites— as seven is to
three, or as fourteen is to six; and Nimrod must have re-
sorted 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 Nim-
rod's immediate relations ; and from the Bible account where
they did go to, it is evident that they did not go ivith Nimrod
to Shinar. This logic of facts, therefore, proves that they
were negroes, and explains why Nimrod is called the mightu
hunter before, or against the Lord, as it should have beeo
translated in this place. David stood before Goliah, but evi-
dently againut him. The whole tenor of the Bible account
shows these views to be correct, whether the negro enteretl
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 pre-
vent this concentration of power and numbers, that God con-
founded their language, broke them into bands, overthrew
their tower, stopped the building of their city, and seatterecl
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, wiiy did
God destroy it? Did God ever, before or after, destroy any
other tower of the many built about this time,, or in any sub^
sequent 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 v/hy prevent them from building a city, but for
the purpose of destroying concentrated pov/er, to the injury
of Noah's children, and their right from God to rule tlie earth?
The Bible nowhere tells us where any of the beasts of
earth v/ent at any tinie : hence, the negro being one, it Siiys
not one word about where any of them went. But we are aE
no loss to find them, when we know their habits. The negro.


we know from his habits, when unrestrained, never inliahits
mountainous districts or countries; and, therefoie, we readily
find hira in the level Plain of Shinar. The whole facts nar-
rated 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 ne-
groes, subdued by and under the rule and direction of Nim-
rod ; 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 /ike
cause, they hoped to avoid it by a tower, which should re.ich
heaven; that their confusion and dispersion, and the stop-
ping of the building o^ 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 hut beasts, and knew what the
eifect of that sin would be, that was being committed dailv.
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) ; therefere 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 scrip-
tures, 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 con-
fusion 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 ob- I
ject to any of the known descendants of Adam and Eve build-
ing 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 thai city and that toAver. Tlie objoction could not
be in regard to its locality, nor to the ground on which it w;is
proposed to build them; for the great City of B:iby^)n and
^vith hiorher towers, too, was afterward built on the s;inie
spot — but by another people — Shem's descendants. Then,
what could be the reason that could cause God to come down
fiom heaven to prevent the^e 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 ficts described in this whole affair. Then remember that,
on one other occasion, God came down from lieaven ; 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 ob-
jects and purposes of these people, and this logic of facts ^
force our minds, in spite of all opposing reasons to the con-
trary, to the conviction that the siyi 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 amalaojamation or miscciiienation 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 seivants should he be to his brethren.
There is something of maiked curiosity in the Bible account
of this Canaan and his family. The binguage is singular,
and <liffers from the Bible account of every other family in
the Bible, where it proposes to give and does give the gene-
alogy of any particular family. Why is this, there must be
some reasofi, and some valid reason too, or there would be
no variation in the particulars we refer to from that of any
other fimily? The account in the Bible reads thus — "And
Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and Heth." So far
80 good. And why not continue on giving the names of his
other sons as in ail other genealogies ? But it does not read so.
It reads, "And Canaan begat Sidon his fii*j*t born, and Heth,


anl the JehuaUr-. and the Amoritp, arnl the Girga^Ue, and the
H'tvifp,. and. the Aj'kife, and the Suiite^ and the -irvi life, and
the Zeni'irife^ and the ffani tfhiie, and who afterward were
the families of the Canaanite spread abroftd." With all
other families the Divine Record goes on as this com-nenced,
giving the names of all the sons. But in this family of C i-
naan, after naming the two sons Sidon and Ileth (who settled
Sidon,Tyre and Carthage, and were tvhUe as is plainly shown)
it breaks off abruptly to these ites. Why this suliix of ite
to their names ? It is extraordinary and unnsu il ; there mast
be sojue reason, a pnciditr reason for this departure from the
usii il mode or rule, of which this is the only exception.
Wli It does it mein? The i-eason is plain. The progeny of
the horse and ass species i.s never cla>iS>iil with eitiier its
father or motlier, but is c tiled a male and represents neither.
So the progeny of a son of God, a d>3scendint of Adam ami
Eve with the negro a beast, is noc classed with or called by
the name of eirher its father or mother, but is an lie^ a
"" (d'lis'' — "bonied clisfi,^' not race^ God intending by this
dii*ti>igul'ih>nent to show to ail future ages what will beco ne
of <fU auck Ue><, by placing in bold relief bef )re our eyes the
terrible eai of the^e as we shall see presently. Reader, bear
in mm I the end of these ites when we come to narrate the:rt.
Tijese iles^ the progeny of Canaan an I the negro, inhabite I
the lial of C lu i in ; with otlnr places, they occupied what
was. then the beautiful plain and vale of Sidlim, where tliev
bailt the notorious cities of So lorn, Gomorrah, A.dmah and
Zeboim. Like all coanterfeits^ they were ambitious of ap-
pearing as the genuine desc^endants of Adam, whose name
they knew or had heard meint"red and fair" in Hebrew;
tliey, therefore, called one of their cities Al-nah, to repre-
sent this •• red and f lir " man, and at the same time it should
mean in negro '• Ethiopic" " beautiful " — that kind of beaury
tiiit once' seduced the sons of God, and brouglit tlie 11 »'>d
upon the earth. About the time we are now referring i>»^
Abrthim, a descendant of Sliem was sojouMiing \\\ Cmauu
He had a nephew named Lot who hid located hiinsjlf in tiie
vale of Siddim, and at this time was livinoj 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 siiould abide ujider the tree, wliiie he would have re-
fresiiinent- [)re[)ar(.'d [or them ; tliey did so, and when about to
de[»ii-t one of tiiem said, "sliad we keep fi'om Abi-aliauj that
thing which I do (God come down again), seeing he shall


surely become a o^reat and mighty nation, for I know he will
commind Ai"? chiliren and hU household after him, and th<^y
shall keep the loay of fhe Lord;'' that is, keepinc^ A(iam's race
pure — a mission the Jews are to this day fulfilling. iVnd
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 foun-
dation have we people of the United States in Goil's mercy
axul forbearance in this incident? Will we prove worthy?
The anijels went to Sodom and brous^ht out all the riojhteous,
being only Lot and his two daughters (and their righteous-
ness was not in their morality), his wife being turned into a
pillar of salt. This done, Goil 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 punish-
ment is on earth. Exhaust the catalogue of human deprav-
ity — name every crime human turpitude can possibly perpe-
trate, 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
raiscegenating of Adam's racewitli the negroes. Noah was
a preacher of righteousness to the antediluvians, yet he got
drunk after the flood. Lot too was a preacher of righteous-
ness 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 he shown by God, that, though frail and sin-
ful in a moral sense as they were, yet, being perfect in their
genealogies from Adam and Eve, they could still be /as


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,
Tvhile 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 ite^i.
If they were the natural descendants of Adam and Eve, would
they not have been as much entitled to hold, occupy and en-
joy it as Abraham or any other? Most certainly. If these
ites were God's children by A<lam and Eve, it is impossible
to suppose that God would turn one child out of house and
land and give them to another, without riorht 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,
(I.) that they shall not take, of the daughters of the land,
wives for their sons ; nor give their daughters in marriaf^e
to them. Strange conflict of God with himself, if indeed
these Canaanites were his children ! To multiply and re-
plenish the earth, is God's command to Adam ; but his com-
mand 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 lineacre of
one family. But mark, (2.) "But of the cities and people of
the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inher-
itance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breathes, but thou
shalt uffcrlg destroy them, namely the llittites, Canaanites,"
etc., naming all the ites — this is their end. Why this terri-
ble order of extermination given? and given by God him-
self? Will not the Lord of the whole earth do ri'T^ht? Yes,
verih^ 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
Lad 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 over-
whelm thetn ? 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^fi children, how bad soever they may be, in a moral sensp,
in contrast with this order to exterminate. The Bible tfdls
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 chil-
dren of Israel witli acts of hostility which some of these ifes
had not. Again, they were not to touch the land of Am-
mon, 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 diri^cteil
Moses to exterminate. Why except those, and doom these
to extermination ? Was not Canaan, the father of these zVf's,
a grandson of Noah, and as much related to the Hebrews as
were the children of Esau, Moab and Ammoii ? 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 sun/>Iy
because they were the progeny of amalgam<ifion or miscegena-
tion, 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 ho pro-
pitiated by all the sacrifices eai'th 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 de-
sire to seek other reasons for this order of exterminarion of
God, yet we look in vain, even to the Hebrews themselves,
for reasons to be found, in their superior moral conduct to-
ward God; but we look in vain. The very people for wiiom
they wei"e exterminated were, in their moral con luct and
obedience to God, no better, save in that sin of amalgama-
tion. The exterminator and the exterminated were bail,
equally alike in evevy moral or religious sense — save one
thing, and one thing only — one had nut brutalized iiiiUbeit*


by amnlgamating ^-ith negroes, the other hri'l. This logic of
fiicts, forces our mirid^, 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
crimf' 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 d^stroveil them. For, if these
Ca?iaanites had been the full children of Adam and Eve,
they would have been as mucdi 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
hearts and partly hiima^i. God not only dispossessed them of
it, but also ordered their etifire extermination, for he had
given no p irf of the earth to such beings. This judgment of
God on these people has been harped upon by every deisti-
cmI and atheistical writer, from the days of Celsus down to
Thomas Paine of the present age, but without understand-
ing it. This <;rime must be unspeakably jxreat, 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 deny-
ino: his Lord and Saviour — all, all the crimsoned crimes of
earth, or within the power of man's infimy and turpitude to
commit and blacken his soul —are as nothing on earth, as
compared with this. Death by the flood, death by the scorch-
inor tire of God burnino: alive the inhabitants of Sodom and
Gomorrah, death to man, woman and child, flocks and herds,
r»Mnorseless, relentless and exterminating death — is the just
jndgtnent of an all-merciful God, for this offense. Tlie 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 deal-
ings with it hereafter.

But we have said before, that we intentionally selected Ca-
naan, the youngest son of Ham, and for a purpose. This we
will now explain. Had Noah named Ham instead of Canaan,
when he declared that he should be a servant of servants to
his brethren, the learned world are of the opinion that it would
have forever, and satisfactorily settled the question, iti con-
juuctioa With the meauiag of nis uame ia Hebrew, that Ham


ivas the father of the present negro race — that if this curse had
been specijicalli/ and personally directed agninst Ham, instead
of his youngest son Canaan, then, no doubt could exist on
earth, but that Ham was, and is the father of the negro. This
is the opinion of the learned. But, why so? Could not the
curse affect Canaan as readily? If it could affect Ham in
changing his color, kinking his hair, crushing his fore-
head down and flattening his nose, why would it not be
equally potent in producing those effects on Canaan? Surely
its effects would be as great on one person as another? It
was to relieve our learned men from this dilemma, among
others, that we took up Canaan, to show, that although this
curse was hurled specifically and personally at Canaan, by
Noah, that a servant of servants should he be, yet it carried
no such effects w^ith it on Canaan or his posterity. Then, if it
did not make the black nesrro of Canaan, how could it have
produced that effect on Ham, Canaan's father? Canaan had

1 2 4 6

Online LibraryBuckner H. PayneThe negro: what is his ethnological status? Is he the progeny of Ham? Is he a descendant of Adam and Eve? ... What is his relation to the white race? → online text (page 4 of 6)