The Union

From the Smyrna Times.

No. 7.

To Ayres Stockly, Esq.

My Dear Sir:—

I flatter myself that I have disproved, beyond doubt or question, the unfounded assumption that "the negroes are descendants of the Canaanites. The "Elder" admits that "our knowledge of history prior to the Grecian Empire is very imperfect; so much so to prove or disprove this point with certainty," and in the absence of proof on this point, he avers that "The traditional belief of all ages and peoples on this subject is, in view of the circumstances, sufficient to satisfy my mind." Unfortunately for the "Elder," he has no proof of even "the traditional belief of all ages and peoples on this subject;" and the authorities cited by him aver no such traditional belief." The authors whom he cites aver one thing; the "Elder" infers, assumes, without authority, quite another thing, and then coolly invites us to believe his inferences—unsupported by either proof or "tradition." On page 7 of this letter the "Elder" remarks:

"When, in addition, we hear the curse of perpetual slavery pronounced by God's Prophet on the children of Canaan, and then find them occupying Ethiopia, the land of Ham," &c.

Here is another unfounded assumption of the "Elder," wholly unsupported by proof or tradition. He has offered no evidence that the Canaanites, or any of the sons or descendants of Canaan, ever occupied Ethiopia. On the contrary, the Sacred Scriptures and the authorities I have quoted on this subject clearly show that the Canaanites never occupied Ethiopia. That they did so is an unwarranted inference merely, which the "Elder" would have his readers make from his disingenuous and cunning language, without his having the manliness to aver the fact. If he knew anything at all on this subject, or the concurring opinions of Moses and of all who have written since his day in relation to the matter, he must have known that "the Children of Canaan" peopled or occupied the land of Canaan; and that neither Moses or any other respectable author has ever said that they occupied Ethiopia. A falsehood or calumny, written by insinuation, inference or innuendo, has always been deemed the meanest and most cowardly mode of propagating error.

What are the object, the specific purpose of the "Elder" in these bold, unsupported assumptions—in these sordid appeals to the cupidity and avarice of his readers? They are quite plainly to be deduced from his "Letter." They are—

1st. To try to show "that the Negroes are specifically distinct from the white race;"

that they are a distinct and an inferior race of beings.

2d. That this "distinct, inferior race of beings" are laboring under the curse of the Almighty, who has doomed them to "slavery, which is to last forever and ever," and that the Divine Being, having thus subjected this "inferior race" to slavery, attested the curse by the distinguishing marks and signs—patent to all men—of "black skins and woolly heads."

3d. That it is not only right, and according to God's purpose and decree, but that it is the duty of the superior white race to enslave the negroes; and all who "omit to advocate this"—pro-slavery doctrine—"when assailed are to stand charged, by the words of Jesus Christ himself, through his servant Paul, with the crime of blasphemy!"

4th. Considering the time when, and the circumstances under which, this "Letter" has been published and circulated, I assume that the great, leading object and purpose of the "Elder" in this "Letter" to his son was Political, and to subserve the contemptible, miserable and inhuman policy of the Southern slave-oligarchy, and of their pliant, supple tools of the Northern sham Democracy. Plain as this leading object of the "Elder" is, it is too contemptible to merit any further notice.

I have shown, I trust, to your satisfaction, and to the satisfaction of my readers, that the negroes are not the descendants of Canaan, upon whom the curse of perpetual servitude was pronounced; and if this be established, then the whole superstructure of negro slavery—built upon this false assumption—falls to the ground, and effectually disposes of and disproves the 2nd and 3rd deductions above stated.

In regard to the position of the "Elder"— that the negroes are specifically distinct from the white race—that "they are a distinct and an inferior race of beings," it is proper that I should quote, somewhat at length, a passage from the "Letter." of the "Elder," to ascertain not only his precise meaning, but also the skepticism, the infidelity he would teach his son.

On page 9 of his "Letter" the "Elder" holds this language:

"Nature instructs us that without Divine interference there could and would have been but one complexion, and that like our first parents. Nature is consistent with herself. Like begets like. The complexion of Adam was white. From the three sons of Noah was the whole earth overspread.' (Gen. Ix. 19,) and since they had a common parentage, all men are descended from one pair. That negroes are, however, specifically distinct from the white race is not only patent to our senses, but is proven by physiology—by the color, hair, figure, brain, &c. A respectable author says, 'The entire bodily structure of the negro, down to the minutest atom of elementary matter, differs just as widely as the color of the skin or other external qualities from those of the white man.' If the science of anatomy and physiology present such facts what ignorance is shown in the popular impression that the difference between the white and black man is merely of color."

I will hereafter animadvert upon the absurdity, nay, reckless folly, of the assertion that "Nature instructs us that without Divine interference there could and would have been but one complexion." The "Elder" has dwelt, with apparent satisfaction upon, and in several places has referred to the "Physiological differences between the white man and the negro." (p. 8.) Moses, in speaking of the three sons of Noah, declares that "of them was the whole earth overspread." (Gen. Ix. 19.) Again, "And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech." (Gen. xI. 1.) Saint Paul, also, in his masterly and justly celebrated address to the Athenian Court of Areopagus (Acts xvII, 26) says, "God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth."

But what, with all his vaunted church membership, his affected piety and respect for the Word of God—what does the "Elder" mean by the assertion that "negroes are specifically distinct from the white race?"—what by insisting upon "physiological differences between the white man and the negro?"—what by parading the declaration of a "respectable author" as to the difference in the "entire bodily structure of the negro from the white man?"—what, I pray, does all this mean but the teaching of the Infidel dogma of distinct races and creations of men?"—the same dogma as contended for by Morton, by Nott and by Gliddon.

Mr. Charles White, many years ago, in a series of discourses before the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester, England appealed to "anatomical facts" in regard to the "bodily structure" of the negro, for the purpose of disproving Dr. Sam'l Stanhope Smith's theory of the unity of the human races and that the color, &c., of the negro was the result of climatic influences. So, too, Messrs. Nott and Gliddon, in their "Types of Mankind," have labored to disprove the unity of the human race, and to show that "the negroes are specifically distinct from the white race. The "Elder," for the purpose of upholding his system of negro slavery. is driven, notwithstanding his pious professions, to adopt the same skeptical, infidel notion, that the negroes are a distinct race from the white race." If we adopt this notion, then negro slavery becomes comparatively innocent—involves no moral turpitude—indeed, resolves itself into a specific grant from the Almighty, in that to Adam was given "Dominion over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Gen. I. 28,) and it would only raise and enforce the common duties of humanity, which man owes to the inferior creation. But if we admit, as all truly Christian, orthodox men will admit, the unity of the human races, then, as Dr. S. S. Smith has well remarked in his very able "Essay on the Causes of the Variety of Complexion and Figure of the Human Species," (p. 244,) "The principles of morals rest on sure and immutable foundations;" whilst, as he says, (p. 243,) "the denial of the unity of the human species tends to impair, if not entirely to destroy the foundations of duty and morals, and, in a word, of the whole science of human nature. No general principles of conduct, or religion, or even of civil policy could be derived from natures originally and essentially different from one another; and afterwards in the perpetual changes of the world, infinitely mixed and compounded, the principles and rules which a philosopher might derive from the study of his own nature, could not be applied with certainty to regulate the conduct of other men and other natures, who might be of totally different species, or spring from a very dissimilar composition of species. The terms which one man would frame to express the ideas and emotions of his own mind must convey to another a meaning as different as the organization of their respective natures. But when the whole human race is known to compose only one species, this confusion and uncertainty is removed, and the science of human nature, in all its relations, becomes susceptible of system. The principles of morals rest on sure and immutable foundations."

In regard to the "physiological differences between the white man and the negro," I would observe that on this subject "doctors disagree." I have made it my care to inquire of several well-read and skillful surgeons "whether they have been able, in the course of their anatomical experience, to discover any difference between the physiology of the white and of the black man?" One gentleman informed me that he had never seen any such difference, but that the negroes generally were supposed to have thicker skulls; and that he once heard an able surgeon say that the "pyramidalis muscle" is sometimes wanting in the negro subject; but that in the course of his own personal experience and observation, he had never discovered any "physiological difference" between the white and black subjects.

Another surgeon of twenty years standing, of practical experience, and acknowledged skill in his profession, confirmed the above statement, and further remarked that he had often found thinner skulls in black subjects than in white; and as to the occasional absence of the "pyramidalis muscle" in the negro, that was not remarkable, as often, in white and black subjects, particular muscles, and sometimes, indeed, small bones are missing.

There are, undoubtedly, many varieties of the human family, occasioned, as is admitted by the ablest writers on the subject, by extraneous circumstances—as "the influence of temperature, and climate, and of food, and the effect of difference in manners and customs." The existence of these varieties has induced some, who are "wiser than Moses," and dissatisfied with his history of the human family, to urge that there are different races or species of men: that these differences prove different creations of men; and that the present varied inhabitants of the world have not all descended from Adam and from Noah. But Dr. Dunglison (Human Physiology, 2 vol. p. 585) remarks, "Whatever changes have been impressed upon mankind can, of course, apply only to the descendants of Noah. The broad distinctions we now meet with could not have existed in his immediate family. saved with him at the time of the deluge. They must, necessarily, have all been of the same race."

I will pursue this subject—of the varieties, and difference of color of these varieties of men—further in a subsequent number, and will conclude this letter by reciting the opinion of Dr. Rush (of world-wide fame as a physician, surgeon and philosopher, and of equal authority, at least, to any surgical author quoted by the "Elder") on the subject of the difference in color and figure of the negroes from the white man. I quote from 2 v. Dunglison's Physiology, (p. 603,): "The following are his (Dr. Rush's) deductions from 'facts and principles' urged into a communication read before the American Philosophical Society in 1792: '1. That all the claims of superiority of the whites over the black on account of their color are founded alike in ignorance and inhumanity. If the color of the negroes be the effect of disease instead of inviting us to tyrannize over them, it should entitle them to a double portion of our humanity, for disease all over the world has always been the signal for immediate and universal compassion.'"

The Doctor (Rush) supposes the black color of the negro to be a disease—a species of Leprosy. He then instances the case of a certain Henry Moss—a formerly a negro from the South—who had become changed by a gradual process of nature, from a black to a white man; and suggests the mode of treatment to cure this disease of the negro. The Doctor concludes by observing, "to encourage attempts to cure this disease of the skin in negroes, let us recollect that by succeeding in them we shall produce a large portion of happiness in the world. We shall in the first place destroy one of the arguments in favor of enslaving the negroes; for their color has been supposed by the ignorant" (will the "Elder" heed this?) "to mark them as objects of divine judgment, and the learned to qualify them for labor in hot and unwholesome climates;" "Secondly, we shall render the belief of the whole human race being descended from one pair, easy and universal, and thereby not only add weight to the Christian revelation, but remove a material obstacle to the exercise of that universal benevolence which is inculcated by it."

However we may dissent from the opinion of Dr. Rush as to the Cause of the color in the negroes, we must admire his firm faith in "Christian Revelation," and to the "Elder" and all of his school, whether Political or Ethnological, I would recommend the Doctor's "Christian Benevolence."

C. S. L.

Georgetown, Sept. 4, 1863.