What satisfactory reasons can be alleged for submitting to this
degradation? What good excuse can be offered? Shall we resort to the
Old Testament argument, that anodyne for the consciences of
"South-Side" divines? Suppose the descendants of Ham were ordained
to be slaves to the end of time, for an offence committed thousands
of years ago, by a progenitor they never heard of. Still, the
greatest amount of theological research leaves it very uncertain who
the descendants of Ham are, and where they are. I presume you would
not consider the title even to one acre of land satisfactorily
settled by evidence of such extremely dubious character; how much
less, then, a man's ownership of himself! Then, again, if we admit
that Africans are descendants of Ham, what is to be said of
thousands of slaves, advertised in Southern newspapers as "passing
themselves for white men, or white women"? Runaways with "blue eyes,
light hair, and rosy complexions"? Are these sons and daughters of
our Presidents, our Governors, our Senators, our Generals, and our
Commodores, descendants of Ham? Are _they_ Africans?
If you turn to the favorite New Testament argument, you will find
that Paul requested Philemon to receive Onesimus, "no longer as a
servant, but as a brother beloved.
Pages:
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50