ames do not describe their color (which they do not), upon
what principles of logical philology or grammar, can Ham's _name_
determine his color? How many of this day are there who are called,
black, white, brown, and olive, all of whom are white, and without the
slightest suspicion, that the _name_ indicated the color of their
respective owners. Is it not strange, that intelligent and learned men,
should be compelled to rely on such puerilities, as arguments and truly
supporting such tremendous conclusions? But they say it was his name in
conjunction with the curse, that made him and his descendants the negro
we now find on earth. It is an axiom in logic, that, that which is not
in the constituent, can not be in the constituted. We have seen, that
the making of Ham a negro, is not _in_ the name, which is one of the
constituents, now let us see, if it is in the other constituent, the
_curse_. Now the _curse_ and _name_ changed Ham, if their theory be
true, from a white man, to a black negro. If the curse, were capable of
effecting such results, it is to be found in the word _curse_, and not
in the words, that a servant of servants should he be, as he and his
descendants could, as readily be servants, white as black, and he was
already white, and no necessity to make him black, to be a servant. If
_this_ effect on _Ham_, is to be found in the word _curse_, it will then
be necessary, for the advocates of the assumption, to show, that such
were its _usual_ results, whenever that word was used; for unless such
were its common effects, when used by God himself, by men of God, by
patriarchs and by prophets, then we ask, on what grounds, if any there
be, it is, that they assert, that _it did produce this_ effect, in _this
instance_, by Noah on Ham and his descendants? We do not question or
doubt, that Canaan, was denounced in the curse, pronounced by Noah, that
_he_ should be a servant of servants; but whether Ham or Canaan _alone_
is meant, is not material to the questions at issue, except in this
view; but the advocates of such being its effect, must show, that such,
at least was its effect previous to, and after Noah used it; and if they
fail in this, that necessarily, this part of their argument is also a
total failure. Let us look into the Bible. God cursed our first parents.
Did this curse kink their hair, flatten their skulls, blacken their skin
and flatten their nose? If it did, then Noah was sadly mistaken and
these gen