37 
a servant of servants. He saw the obscene nature and meanness of the race, 
and it is astonishing that, though we have hoped to see the Negroes elevated, 
still the testimony of all history, both past and present, is that these men 
have generally still very much of the character of Ham. They have a de- 
based, sensual, and graceless character. They sell their very children now, 
without any scruple, and debase them, not as in the exceptional cases, which 
occur among degraded people of our own race, but as a characteristic habit 
of the people. When we see these extraordinary characteristics, we are 
bound to face the facts. I agree with Mr. Titcomb that it is not the least 
likely that Ham was suddenly converted into a black man, but I do think it 
likely that he was a black or very swarthy man before. At all events, his 
eldest son was called Cush, which means black in Hebrew ; and we know 
that names were naturally given in those days according to the habits and 
characteristics of individuals, just as it once was in our own country , though 
we now usually inherit the names of our ancestors. We know that origin- 
ally (especially if they were great men) they derived their names from their 
characteristics, as in the case of Longimanus, Rufus, &c. Well, as Ham s 
son was called Cush, that makes it probable that he was a black man, but 
there is nothing to lead us to think that the curse of slavery had anything to 
do with that. That may have been merely a coincidence ; and how Mr. 
Titcomb should think that mere accidental causes should be so influential in 
human affairs I cannot at all understand. No doubt many accidental things 
occur in the world ; but they relate rather to the episodes than to the epics 
of life. Providence does not allow mere accident or chance to prevail. Nor 
do I think that disease should be dwelt upon with so much emphasis. And 
discarding these, we are left, then, with one other simple explanation of the 
origin of the black race. If we suppose Ham and Cush to have been black 
men, cast out from Noah’s family, or slinking away from very shame after 
Ham’s conduct to his father, then I think it probable that here we have the 
whole key to Mr. Titcomb’s theory, for he himself puts tribal quarrelsome- 
ness, or persecution, as one of the causes of segregation. But I want to know 
what is the greatest cause of family jars if not irreverence ? In the family of 
Noah a son behaves abominably and is cast out from his family. If you 
suppose that he was a black man — and the name of his son gives you almost 
a proof of its probability — you have the very first elements of what Mr. 
Titcomb wishes for the solution of his problem. You get a swarthy family 
separated, in the early stages of the world, from all others ; they breed in 
and in and go south, and the climatic influence adds to their peculiar dis- 
tinctions ; their debasement of character and immorality also naturally go on 
increasing ; they become more and more debased ; and following the degra- 
dation of their morals you find that the degradation of their intellect will 
also result. I consider that an elevated character, whatever a man may 1 e 
after he has acquired intelligence, has for its turning-point mainly the moral 
principle and regard to the higher principles of right and wrong. When 
you have a debased morality you will have eventually, not always, perhaps, 
in the individual, but in the race, debased descendants. They indulge their 
