The Negro's Origin: and Is the Negro cursed?/Chapter 3
Is the Negro Cursed?
THE answer to the question, Is the Negro cursed? depends altogether upon the answer given to the question, Is Ham cursed? If the Noachic cursings were really directed against Ham, then must his negro descendants prepare to take their full share. We acknowledge the validity of Noah's malediction. His reputed intemperance affects not its force. God's oracles are of his own choosing, and in no way can they affect the message which they may deliver. A tongue only is needed; whether it be in the head of a stupid ass, a lucre-loving Balaam or a drunken Noah, it is equally the Lord's mouth-piece. But the Scripture says of Noah: "And he awoke from his wine." Sleep invariably produces soberness, and the probability is that Noah was sober. The curses of Noah are valid—upon whom fell they, Ham or Canaan?
This question cannot be settled by consulting Jewish Talmuds, nor Targums, nor any of the sayings of the Rabbis. Nor can it be settled by consulting Christian doctors, ancient or modern, especially the latter, for in this case it has been seen, that even the most pious are susceptible of Race feeling, holding with kith and kin, be they right or wrong. Where may this matter be settled — where, definitely and impartially answer the interrogatory, Was Ham cursed ? Only in the record written by Moses. If it cannot there be settled, it must forever remain unsettled, for all other records are to be laid aside. The whole account, and the only account given is the following, found in Gen. ix. 18-27
18 ¶ And the sons of Noah that went forth from the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard;
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken, and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham the father of Canaan saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father: and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Here we have the Alpha and Omega of this whole affair. He must grope in the dark, who is not satisfied with the light here offered. At the very commencement of our argument we say, and from our heart, would that all prejudice pro and con were laid aside, and that all minds were susceptible of arriving at the truth. Who was cursed, Ham or Canaan? We say CANAAN. The proof we offer will be divided into Direct and Indirect.
Direct Proof.
(a.) The Scriptures say, CANAAN, in three distinct places. Ver. 25: "And he said Cursed be CANAAN." Verses 26 and 27 speak with the same precision—"And CANAAN shall be his servant."
By reason of this cursing Canaan must be the guilty party, else the whole story goes for nought. Having acknowledged the divinity of Noah's malediction, it will not do to suppose Canaan to be guilty; we must know it; at least our faith in the justice of God will not allow us to question his guilt for a moment. God's cursings are always proof positive of guilt. Our every conception of the Divine character demands this. He cursed and destroyed all the ante-diluvian world. Do any doubt their guilt? He cursed and destroyed Sodom. Do any doubt its guilt? Are not all His cursings, sufficient guarantees of guilt ? We know a portion of the angels sinned, simply because they were not allowed to keep their first estate. A Christian wants no better proof. It is thus with Canaan. We know he was the guilty party, because he was cursed ; and, we know he was the only guilty party, because he was the only party cursed. That he was cursed none pretend to deny ; that he was not the only person cursed, none can affirm. But if Ham was cursed by reason of guilt, why should the whole burden of it fall on Canaan? Why should Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut go scot free? If some transcriber has blundered and written Canaan when he should have written Ham, then justice demands all his seed to take a share; and not the youngest and weakest bear the whole burden.
(b.) The Scriptures say again, "And Noah knew what his younger son had done unto him." That younger כֵּן was Canaan, and not Ham, as we hope to be able to prove. Ham was not his younger son, as Scripture plainly informs us, in Gen. vi. 32; v 10; x. 1; and 1 Chron. i. 4.
A fundamental rule of Scripture is to name children in the order of their birth. It would be useless to multiply instances. Nor is this rule ever departed from without an apparent reason. The sons of Noah are enumerated in the parts of Scripture just designated, and in each the well-known rule is observed, the familiar Shem, Ham and Japheth, is read.
Strong indeed must be the proof that demands us to break such conclusive testimony In regard to Ham there is not the least testimony offered, save that founded on the assumption that he is the party cursed; an argument a posteriori of the most shiftless kind. In regard to Shem and to Japheth, doubts may arise from the fact, that in the genealogical table of Noah's descendants recorded in 1 Chron. i. the children of Japheth are given first, those of Shem, last; but Ham keeps his middle place; also in Gen. x. 21 we read, "And Shem * * * the brother of Japheth the elder." The word rendered "elder" here, may indeed relate to seniority of birth; but its primary and customary signification is "great" of which multiplied instances could be produced. Without extreme license the declaration could be translated—"Japheth, who is (to be) great." See Gesen. § 107 But why meddle with Japheth? Needs he a defense, they are named legion who can give it. Our business is with Ham; to see to it that he be not displaced from his MIDDLE position. Scripture awards it. Let no robber hand efface it.[1]
We have thus seen from plain Scriptural declaration that Ham was not the younger כֵּן. We now proceed to show that Canaan was.
The Hebrew rendered by King James' translators "his younger son" is בְּנֽו֨ הֲקטֶן With the translation given in the present text, an open conflict is the result. According to the ranking of the sons as given in Gen. v.32; vi.10; x.1; 1 Chron. 1-4, Japheth is the youngest son; but that Japheth was not the transgressor is too apparent to need argument. How then can this plain contradiction be harmonized—how translate this Hebrew so as to meet the demands of truth, and yet harmonize the text? Can it be done? It most certainly can. The Hebrew words, denoting relationship, have a very wide latitude. The word אָב translated "father" in Gen. xix. 31, as well as in innumerable other places, is translated, "a grand-father," in Gen. xxviii. 13-31: and "great grand-father," in Num. xviii. 1-2. The word אֵם whose usual signification is "mother," is translated "grandmother," 2 Kings xv 10. אָת "brother," signifies also, "a relative, kinsman, members of the same tribe, even a fellow-countryman." It is thus with the noun בֵּן "son." Standard authority says, "The word, son, like those of father and brother, is employed by the He- brews in various other and wide senses." In Gen. xxix. 5, Laban is called the son of Nahor, when he really was grandson to the Patriarch. In Gen. xxxi. 28, grand-children are denoted by the same term, as also in verse 55th of the same Chapter. In Ezra v-1, the prophet Zechariah is said to be the "son of Iddo," when Zechariah himself declares he was his "grand-son."
The same word has even a wider signification. The plural of it uniformly denotes "posterity, descendants." In the use of all these nouns of relationship, the facts of the context must define their limit; they themselves are but general expressions of some kindred. Apply this rule to Gen. ix. 24, and it will read— not "his younger son," but "his younger grand-son." This is perfectly allowable, as is shown, while it gives harmony to the whole affair. By reason of the punishment inflicted the crime is fixed upon Canaan; and this fact of the context fixes and defines the full scope of the Hebrew, בֵּן. Canaan was the younger grandson as a matter of fact, and words must ever accord with facts. But we would not have it to be made read thus: let this take its part with all other similar places found in our venerable translation—let the context explain here as elsewhere.
But, says one, the offense is plainly declared to have been committed by Ham. We contend that no offense can be proved from verse 22: "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without."
Let us look at the incidents related. Noah had taken too freely of the juice of the grape, and in consequence was drunk. In this condition he made an immodest exhibition of himself. "Et nudatus in tabernaculo suo." Now, what was the action of the children and grandchildren of their aged sire? criminal action? Moses does not even intimate. Ham, desiring to put an end to the reproachful exhibition, loses no time, but hastens to inform his brethren. But why did he not go himself demand his accusers? On the hypothesis that the party cursed, was the one of guilt, his course of proceeding was the most natural in the world. The conduct of Canaan is reported to him, he goes to see for himself, and his worst fears are more than realized. Having informed Shem and Japheth of the affair, he himself gives his attention to his irreverent son, while his brothers, assured of their father's nudity, go backward and cover him with a mantle.
If one will divest himself of prejudice, no blame can possibly be attached to Ham, by reason of what is declared in this verse. Must not the condition of the father come to the ears of the sons by some one? and must the bare fact of revealing the state of his father, incur guilt? If so, wo be to the angel messengers who carry back to Heaven the moral state of the world; for the world lies naked before God.
But Ham was not blessed as was Shem and Japheth, cries another accuser. Be it so. But he was not cursed; neither was the blessing he received in common with his two brothers annulled. In gratitude to Shem and Japheth, their blessings are increased, but nothing is taken from Ham. Extra gifts do not detract from those given in common. Shem and Japheth were rewarded for a thoughtfulness and modesty, which Ham in the height of his indignation against Canaan neglected to make manifest. Very like indeed is his conduct to that of Moses at Meribah. Both manifested too much passion. But even in ascribing passion to Ham, it is to be taken for granted that he was satisfactorily made to know his father's condition, which can never be done. For ought to the contrary some of the children may have made complaint against Canaan, and like most parents it was not fully credited by his father till he saw for himself.
Indirect Evidence.
An indirect proof that Canaan is the guilty party is the notoriety he had among the people. This is evidenced in verse 18, and before we are told a word in regard to the fall of Noah. Verse 18, says, "And the sons of Noah that went forth of the ark, were Shem, Ham and Japheth; and Ham is the father of Canaan." All writings are for the purpose of giving information. To tell the Israelites who Shem was, Moses had no incident, or deed, known to the people, with which to connect his name. He must be known only as the son of Noah. It was likewise the same with Japheth. Neither directly nor indirectly were they connected with a popular notoriety. But it was not thus with Ham; aside from being the son of Noah, he was designated as the father of Canaan. A son of one noted individual, the father of another; but their notoriety was different. But who is Canaan? What had he done? Noah was known; he had done something, and in consequence had popular fame. Ham could be distinguished in no better way than to say that he was the son of Noah. But what was the force of the words—the father of Canaan? Shall the unknown identify the known? Is it reasonable to suppose, aye, is it possible that an obscure younger son could identify or designate a father; one of the four, too, saved in the Ark? It is impossible save on the hypothesis that he had done something, by which his name had become spread abroad. The following is not at all dissimilar in word and spirit: "And the sons of John (Adams) that went forth into the world were, John Quincy, Samuel, Josiah and Ebenezer, and John Quincy (Adams) is the brother of Ebenezer."
Likewise in verse 22, Ham is again designated as the father of Canaan. Canaan must have had a wide-spread notoriety; and the question presents itself, what had he done to achieve it? He was the youngest of four sons. The youngest do not usually have the greatest fame, all things being equal. Each of his three brothers were men of spirit: not likely to be overshadowed by a younger brother in deeds of moment. Each of them founded an empire; and living when the work of each is done, we are prepared to say that Canaan was the least likely to obtain an enviable fame of all the Hamitic family Yet Ham is not designated as the father of Mizraim; though Mizraim was verily a prince; he is not designated as the father of Cush; though Cush reigned over Ethiopia, as Josephus says; he is not designated as the father of Phut. Would Moses give the Israelites and the world a clear designation of Ham, he points him out as the father of Canaan. Neither Scripture nor tradition give the least intimation of Canaan ever figuring; in any capacity save that of a criminal, for which he was disgraced by his brethren, and cursed of God.
(b.) A second indirect proof that Canaan is the guilty party, is the significant fact that he did not accompany his father and brethren to Africa. That he did not is one of the best established facts of history and tradition: so patent indeed is it, that none pretend to advocate it. The most bitter slaveocrat has been compelled to acknowledge it. We go out of the regular train of argument to say here that the impossibility of locating Canaan in Africa, in no little measure accounts for the strenuous determination which the same slaveocrats have ever made to fix the crime on Ham; aye, it accounts for the ready acquiescence which many good men gave to the unjust imputation. Each of these classes looked upon the suffering negro; the conscience of the one upbraided him, and he would fain satisfy it by making himself believe that God had doomed his victim by an irrevocable curse; the reason of the other, thought that surely where such punishment was inflicted, there must be some occasion. Each saw that in some way the father of the race was connected with a divine curse, and though to him indefinite, it yet gave satisfaction—satisfaction to the conscience of the one, satisfaction to the reason of the other. They saw not Canaan hitched to this Juggernaut of torture and death; they imagined they saw Ham.
The question is, Why did not Canaan and his posterity accompany the tribes of Ham into Africa? why this younger one remain? In after years the twelve tribes of Jacob marched up from Egypt—nor was one left behind. Why should not the four tribes of Ham march down? The youngest child is most generally the pet, the best beloved. Jacob loved Joseph better than all his brothers, because "he was the son of his old age." Human nature is one. Wherefore should Ham leave this son of his old age behind? The whole affair is inexplicable, without the assumption that some sod transaction made it necessary for them thus to act. This we find in the curse pronounced. With this understanding how natural does their course become? how justifiable, in forsaking a brother, aye in compelling him to remain behind. These brethren had just experienced the wrath of the curse of God—had seen the floods descend, had heard the fountains of the deep break up, had felt the mighty throes of the earth be- neath the feet of their angered God, and from the great depths of their souls they sighed to be spared from another suck visitation. They could not doubt the prophetic dignity of their father. They knew his voice made known the will and mind of God, and when, in prophetic ecstacy they saw the roll of his eye and heard the muttering words, "Cursed be Canaan," they felt breaking asunder every tie of union and destiny With one voice the brothers said, "Arise, let us go hence."
We conclude our argument by giving a resume of this sad drama. What is the part acted by each? — the definite part as given in the only credible account. What is it? without imagination, without supposition. The personce of this drama, are, Noah, a father, and Shem, Ham and Japheth, sons; and Canaan, a grandson. What is the part acted by each? On the very face of the account it is apparent that all is not told. Our business in concluding this argument is not to meddle with the untold, but to confine ourselves strictly to what is given us. Noah played the part of the drunkard. Ham makes known his condition to his brothers Shem and Japheth. Shem and Japheth, with the most commendable modesty, cover their father's shame, and Canaan is cursed. Thus briefly may the whole affair be told. The parts played by Noah, Shem, and Japheth, are doubtless given in full. A shade rests over the part enacted by Ham and his son Canaan. But as far as the action of these two are given, toward which does the account point as the guilty party? What is this account, howsoever indefinite? We have already been told Ham revealed his father's condition and Canaan was cursed. We admit the blackness of the shade as here met, yet peering into it as far as may be, like blind Samson, there is one pillar we may lay hold upon. The part took by Ham is uncertain, the part took, by Canaan is uncertain, but the Spirit of inspiration, with whom there was no uncertainty, pronounced the curse on Canaan! and Ham went free. More conclusive evidence may be demanded by curiosity, but not by faith.
CANAAN cursed, the negro is free, the recipient of the common blessing pronounced—not by Noah under doubtful circumstances, but by God Himself.
- ↑ Dr. Adam Clark says, "Ham was certainly the youngest of Noah, and from what we read Chap. ix. 22, the worst of them; and how he comes to be mentioned out of his natural order is not easy to be accounted for."
The Dr. here denies a plain statement of Scripture, and then acknowledges that he cannot account for his own supposition. Like a goodly part of the Dr's. comments, this was written under previously conceived opinion.