Franklin County: ""What of the Negro race?": Bolding vs. Hasskarl," by B.J. Bolding, B.D., 1906
Summary: A black minister in Franklin County refutes the recent arguments of a white minister in Franklin County about the supremacy of the white race, using both biblical and scientific arguments.
INTRODUCTION
"He meets the foe with voice and pen,
With eloquence surprising!
Give
us a chance, for we are men!
My brethren! we are rising."
GEORGE C.
ROWE.
It is the misfortune of Afro-Americans to live amongst a people whose laws, traditions, and prejudices have been against them for centuries. Some white people dislike us because we were once slaves and have not been able in these few years of freedom to release ourselves from all the baneful effects of slavery; others are against us because of our color; and still others hate us because we exist and succeed in spite of all their efforts to down us. Indeed we are surrounded with prejudices on all sides. Many bitter and malicious things have been said and written by our enemies in order to retard our progress and to increase the size and venom of the slimy serpent of prejudice, but it has fallen to the lot of Rev. G.C.H. Hasskarl, Chambersburg, Pa., to strike the hardest blow, and to manifest the most malevolent spirit in such malicious business.
One can hardly imagine that a man with any degree of intelligence, with the facts of history before him and with such illustrious examples of intelligence and moral manhood in ebony hue on every side could have made such statements as are contained in the articles published in the Chambersburg Democratic News. Rev. Hasskarl is not only color blind, but prejudice blind. However, the Afro-Americans everywhere can felicitate themselves in the fact that they have a young man in the person of Rev. B. J. Bolding, to defend the race against the attacks of this arch enemy. Dr. Bolding has proved himself more than a match for his opponent. In a speech at Asbury Park Auditorium before the New Jersey State Convention of Christian Endeavors. September 15, '98, speaking of the controversy I said: Rev. Hasskarl asserts that the colored people are not human beings, but beasts, that Adam and Eve were not their fore-parents; that they were created priorto them, at the time the beasts of the field were created, and that they entered the ark not as men, but as monkeys and by a system of evolution through the ages have developed into the resemblance of men. He deplores all efforts to develop them morally and spiritually because they have no souls. He declares all of this in the face of the fact that we look like men, talk like men, think like men, walk like men, love like men, worship like men, have a human anatomical construction and possess all the attributes of human beings.
The amusing part of the affair is, however, that the learned doctor is in a controversy with a learned beast, according to his theory, a graduate of one of the best equipped universities of the country. He is making it pretty lively for the learned gentleman. Dr. Bolding has the better of the argument, so far as logic is concerned. If the ability to think, reason and will is the line of demarkation between the man and the beast, then I am sure in this instance the Beast is not Black. Rev. Bolding was ordained by me at annual Conference at York, Pa. He has very successfully pastored every charge to which he has been assigned. He is the author of "Inspiration of the Scriptures" and "Church Unity." He was educated at Howard University, Temple College and The Divinity School of Philadelphia. He is statistical secretary of the Philadelphia and Baltimore Conference A.M.E. Zion church.
Long may the author of this pamphlet live to defend his race and be a blessing to humanity.
A. WALTERS,
Bishop A.M.E.
Zion Church,
"Pilgrims Rest." Jersey City, N.J.
I have read carefully a series of articles under the caption, "What of the Negro Race?" by Rev. G.C.H. Hasskarl, D.C.L., pastor of the second Lutheran Church, Chambersburg, Pa. On behalf of my race and the great interest manifested in them by the good philanthropists of this country, I cannot refrain from replying to his argument from a scientific and ethnological standpoint.
(A) The colonization scheme of Bishop Turner does not voice the sentiment of the educated men of our race. If the Negro should emigrate to Africa they would have to build two walls. One to keep from all there and another to keep the white man out. I do not favor the Negro going to Africa no more than for the Irish to go back to Ireland and the German to Germany, etc. We asked not to come here. Our labor for 250 years have tilled the soil, cleared the forest and materially assisted in advancing higher civilization. I shall not enter too far into that part of Mr. Hasskarl's argument but shall come at once to the question at issue. "What of the Negro Race?" Ethnologists are generally agreed that the Negro is the descendant of Ham. The Holy Scriptures say "And the whole earth was ofone language, and of one speech." Gen. 11:1. This assertion of the sacred record in relation to men at a period not much later than the Deluge and before the commencement of the abortive effort which rendered Babel so memorable, reveals a fact precisely such as we might look for if the Deluge was literally universal, and if "Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark." Gen. 7:23. For plainly in that case all the growing population subsequent to that catastrophy, must have sprung from Noah and his three sons; they must have been of one and the same stock, and they must, therefore, all have been originally of "one language and of one speech."
(B) This passage in Genesis must refer to the entire population of the globe at that time. It cannot be restricted to any one particular land or country and to some one tribe or nation occupying that one specified district. All the circumstances of the case forbid such restriction. This declaration stands as introductory to the record of the building of the tower of Babel, the confounding of the language of those so employed and their consequent separation into several branches or communities each speaking its own peculiar language unintelligable to the others, and of the after settlement ofthese several bands of colonists in different countries; by all which the ultimate peopling of the whole earth was secured. This separation of the earth's population, or this "dividing of the earth," as the sacred penman calls it, took place "in the days of Peleg" whose birth is recorded Gen. 10:25. It has therefore, been concluded that the confounding of man's language at Babel which led to the dispersion, took place not very long after the Deluge, and at a time when the post-deluvian population might readily have numbered several thousand.
This oneness of the primitive language spoken by the entire post-deluvian population of the earth, up to the days of Peleg, is one of the proofs going to show that to this day it is true, Man is one family. I will admit, Mr. Hasskarl, that there is great diversity marking what are called the several races of mankind, the entire population of the globe even now, is sprung from the same stock. All men of all nations and countries, whatever be the shade of their complexion, the difference in their features, their anatomical structure, their habits and their intellectual capacity-the Negro, the Caucasian, the Mongol, the Malay are each and all descendants of the one original human pair, Adam and Eve, in the line of Noah and his three sons who with their wives were the sole survivors of the Deluge. They all constitute One Family. They all sprung from Eve e.i. Life, so named on that very account that she was to be the mother of all living, Gen. 6:20, just as it is declared in the book of Acts 17:26, "God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth." Such is the view the Bible presents, such is the view we hold and shall maintain. That man is from one common parent.
II.
I desire now to show that the former inhabitants of our world are known to us by three kinds of evidence.
(1) Written Records; (2) Architectural Monuments; (3) Fragmentary Remains.
The true source of history comes from written records. The oldest existing books are the Hebrew Scriptures, which alone of ancient writings describe the separation of the earth for the abode of man; his creation and primeval innocence; the entrance of sin into the world and the promise of Redemption; the first probation and the almost total destruction of the human race by a flood; the vain attempt of Noah's descendants to avert similar punishment by building a "City and tower whose top should reach into heaven," and their consequent dispersion. The Bible lays the foundation of all subsequent history by sketching the division of the human race into three great families and describing their earliest migrations. As I shall endeavor to follow the Hamitic thread, I shall not trace the other two main divisions of the human family. (A) The descendants of Ham settled in the valleys of Tigris and Euphrates, they built the cities of Ninevah and Babylon; while the rest spread along the eastern and southern shores of the Mediterranean and became the founders of the Egyptian Empire. The Hamitic nations were distinguished by their material grandeur, as exemplified by the enormous masses of stone employed in their architecture, and even in their sculpture.
(2) Africa the ancestral home of the Negro, is almost wholly within the tropics, only a small portion of its northern and southern extremities entering the two temperate zones, where their climate is most nearly torrid. Before the conquest by the Persians northern Africa was divided between five nations, the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Phoenicians, Libyans and Greeks. The Ethiopians occupied the Nile valley above Egypt, including what is now known as Abyssinia. Meroe was the chief city of the Ethiopians. Archeologists claim for some of their monuments more antiquity than those of Egypt. Arabian traditions say that the inhabitants of the Northern coast of Africa were descendants of the Canaanites whom the children of Israel drove out of Palestine, descendants of Canaan, son of Ham, upon whomNoah put the curse. "Cursed be Canaan, a servant or servants shall he be unto his brethren." Gen. 9:25. From the logic of historical facts the Negro is the true descendant of Ham and a part of the great Hamitic race. Gen. 10:6, "The sons of Ham: Crush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan." The Holy Scriptures say "These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations." Gen. 10:20. It is quite evident that there was a difference between each son's descendants.
The learned Doctor endeavors to make us believe that the Negro got his origin from the monkey.
"Nature will perpetuate varieties, for this is in accordance with her operations; but refuses to multiply hybrids, for this is contrary to her laws."-Dr. Bachman. The following are the conclusions to which Dr. Bachman. The following are the conclusions to which Dr. Bachman believes himself incontrovertibly led by the facts in regard to animals:-
"1.-Nature, in all her operations, by the peculiar organization of each species-by their instinctive repugnance to an association by the infertility of a hybrid production, when by art or accident this takes place-and by the extinction of these hybrids in a very short period of time, gives us the most indubitable evidence that the creation of species is an act of Divine power alone, and cannot be effected by any other means.
"2.-That no race of animals has ever sprung from a commingling of two or more species.
"3.-Domestication, in every species that has been brought under subjection, produces striking and often permanent varieties, but has never evolved a faculty to produce fertile hybrids.
"4.-Since no two species of animals have ever been known to produce a prolifie hybird race, therefore hybridity is a test of specific character.
"5.-Consequently the fact that all the races of mankind produce with each other a fertile progeny, by which means new varieties have been produced in every country; constitutes one of the most powerful and undeniable arguments in favor of the unity of the races"
If the monkey could have been found that was capable of intellectuality; and the power of memory, will, attention or perception then we would see some analogy between them and other intelligiences. The monkey is the same old monkey he was the day he went into the ark. Since this law of uniform, permanent and natural propagation has been made by God an invariable mark of specific difference among all other animals it follows, that, as the present inhabitants of the earth are made up of races formed by the amalgamation of many varieties, the human family must be of one species. I entertain a high respect for the talents and the attainments of Rev. Hasskarl. In any department of mere science probably the learned gentleman's opinion might be entitled to profound deference. "Humanum est errare et nescire" is an old adage but I believe it to be true, especially in Dr. Hasskarl's case. But, my friend, to consider your argument and take you as an expounder of the Sacred records of our faith you stand before us shorn of your strength. To sustain a PET THEORY, you would arbitrarily impose a new and unnatural interpretation on several passages of the Bible, which present a totally different meaning Made of one blood" has, according to him no relation at all to affinity by blood or natural descent. This passage of the book of Acts the Apostle refers very evidently to the record of the early colonization and settling of the earth which is contained in the books of Moses. Some Greek copies preserve only the word evos. i.e. one, leaving out aiuatog, i.e. blood-a reading which the Latin Vulgate follows. The Arabic version, to explain both these terms, has ex homine, or as De Dieu renders it, ex Adamo uno-there being but the difference of one letter in the Eastern languages between dam and Adam, the one denoting blood and the other man. But if we take this passage as our more ordinary copies read it, e evos aiuatog, i.e. of one blood, it is still equally plain that the meaning of the apostle is not that all mankind were made of the same uniform matter, or in the same mould as some have weakly imagined; for, on that ground, not only mankind but the whole earth might be said to be ex henos haimatos, i.e. of the same blood, since all things in the world were first formed out of the same matter. The word aiua, namely blood, must therefore be here rendered in the same sense as that in which it occurs in the best Greek authors--namely the stock out of which men come. The apostle's meaning, therefore, is, that however men now are dispersed in their habitations and however much they differ in language and customs from each other, they are all originally of the same stock, and derive their succession from the first man whom God created, that is, from Adam, from whose name the Hebrew word for blood-i.e. dam-is a derivative Physiology supplies a remarkable proof of this declaration of Scripture. Our Saviour said, "But from the beginning of the creation, God them male and female; for this cause shall made them male and female; for this cause shall a man leave father and mother and cleave unto his wife." Man's nature possesses in itself all that is beautiful and inanimate nature, the life and growth of plants, the higher powers of beasts, the reason and wisdom of angels, and the moral lineaments of Deity.
In treating of man's specific character, they have regard only to his animal organization and nature. But while this might be permitted when the object is merely to accommodate the convenience of scientific analysis yet when we come to speak of man practically, and in view of his relations to God and to his fellow men, it is altogether inadmissible. "Man, as he is, as he lives, moves, acts, thinks, and wills, is not an animal." The Negro as we know him and see him in the light of this 19th century civilization is not an animal. The learned Doctor says he has no soul and in the next few sentences describes in him the attributes of the soul. What composes a soul? Look again, Doctor in your psychology and you will find that knowledge, feeling and will, are its main divisions. Knowing is an intellectual process, involving psychical laws. It is an activity which the "Ego" experiences. I am not talking of the Negro in history but of the personal self, the ego. Now if I have no "psyche" then the lessons I have learned in mental philosophy is of no effect to me. There is hardly an intelligent argument on this point, because ocular demonstration will convince even as fool that black is black and white is white. Therefore the Negro as he moves, thinks or wills is not an animal. He is more, inconceivablymore. Every one must admit and feel that it is not in man's animal frame, exquisite as is its workmanship, that we find the most remarkable of the human phenomena. All must admit that there is in man an element remarkably distinct from all his other functions, an essence whose property is thought. What gives to this animal frame its chief importance is, that it is the shrine of that mysterious principle which lies hidden within-that volatile element which no chemist has been able to detect-that impossible thing which has escaped the scalpel of the most minute anatomist-that which, itself invisible, gives to the eye all its diversified expression, revealing itself there in a thousand intimations-which transfuses itself into the voice, inspiring its ever-changing intonations, and rendering it the conveyancer to others of the endless series of thoughts and which imparts to every variety of feature and gesture all that it has of life, and interest, and expression. "The Ethiopians (Cushites) were distinct from the Egyptians with dark complexions, thick lips and sloping profiles. Their descent from Ham is distinctly asserted in Gen. 10:6. Egyptian civilization was readily received among them but suffered deterioration in the process and failed to raise the race very much above the savage condition." There were times when Ethiopia, that is, the ancient kingdom of Askum in Abayssina--threatened to become one of the "Great Powers" of the Eastern world; but some inherent weakness caused it to relapse, after each success into a comparatively unimportant position.
(1.) Philological Idea-For ages the friends of the "Unity of the Human Races" appeal to the results of a careful comparison of languages by which it is shown that "all language throughout the whole world, present so close an analogy the one to the other, and exhibit so many points of resemblance notwithstanding the vast diversity among them, that the ablest investigators of the subject have concluded that all languages must have been originally united in one, whence they draw the common elements to them all and the separation between them could not be made by any gradual departure, or individual development; but it must have been brought about by some violent, unusual, active force, sufficient alone to reconcile these conflicting appearances and to account at once for the resemblances and the differences. Language is at once the sign and the means of man's control of the brute creation, it is the analogue of his judgment and reason both of which would be crippled without it. This is one of all ordinary human faculties which men in all ages have been inclined to accept as most nearly divine. "But it is a striking, though commonplace fact, that while the vocal organs of men are the same the world over, the forms of human speech are many and various. Now the Negro speaks and as far as we can ascertain, he always spoke. These are facts but what explains the diversity? Did mankind ever speak one language of which all existing tongues are variations? Can any language now different be proven to have been originally identical, subsequently differentiating on explicable principles? These are the great questions the facts suggest.
A language is not a science. The Bible says "The whole earth was of one language and of one speech." By linguistic research, furthermore we can determine the civilization and to some extent the habitation of the original race. If the Sanskrit word for yoke is "yuga," the Latin "jugum," the German "jock," it is tolerably evident that the ancestors of all these nations knew what a yoke was. If we can prove the idenity of the Sanskrit "gau," the Greek "bonus," the German "kuh," and the English cow, it is reasonably certain that most Indo-Europeans were acquainted with horned cattle. By this process a surprising amount of information has been gained." Now if Prof. Cole is right in this relation in languages, I claim that the Negro was a member of the speaking family from creation. I ask you to more thoroughly go with me into the great field of philology. The fact, then, that notwithstanding the prevailing diversity of languages, there are so many points of resemblance among all known languages, resemblances which present and themselves the more numerous the more striking the further philologists extend their researches, does to one who duty reflects on the reflects of language and appreciates the philosophical character of the structure of language, present a strong case in evidence of a common origin for them all and with it a powerful argument for the common origin of all the now widely differing races of men.
Rejoinder No. 1 from Rev. G.C.H. Hasskarl, D.C.L., was more than a surprise to me and the readers of this discussion. All of his reasons donot make a point on the subject "What of the Negro Race?" Dr. Hasskarl you must remember that personal opinions are not argument and truth is light but reason rules the world. If you do not put your rejoinders on higher intellectual grounds I will be compelled to ceasewriting because I would underrate myself and my "Alma-Mater."
Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual antidotes of error. Give them full scope, and they will uphold the truth, by bringing false opinions and all the spurious offspring of ignorance, prejudice and self-interest, before their severe tribunal and subjecting them to the test of close investigation.
Error alone needs artificial support; truth can stand by itself. That the Negro had his origin in the first man, I believe I have clearly proven from Scripture and Philology in my previous article, at any rate I shall endeavor to present the Anthropological and ethical ideas of man to you. We desire to show that the negro has a soul and a personality both of which, Dr. G.C.H. Hasskarl, D.C.L., pastor 2nd Lutheran church Chambersburg Pa., denies him. The word man is derived from the Greek "Anthropos," and I shall treat the word in this sense.
The consideration of the elements of human personality as given, (the negro certainly has this), the complete representation of which belongs to anthropology and psychology is inseparable from the admission, that they are destined to an entirely different development from mere natural necessity. Dr. Hasskarl says in article 6, "that the negro is wanting in personality, and soulless," and in the next seven lines he says he "existed." "Falsehood is the mother of invention." As the creature formed in the image of God, a man (Anthropos) whether he be black or white, is being possessed of soul and body, a union of mind and nature, which is not like the divine life indissoluble (Heb. 7), but shall only become an indissoluble life in a future, more perfect existence.
Logic is derived from the Greek "Logos" and in the sense used by Plato, it means whatever pertains to the Mind, the Reason, the immaterial power or faculty which is manifested in the words and speech of men. Logic was used to denote the whole of what, in modern times has been called Intellectual Philosophy or Metaphysics. But Intellectual Philosophy or Metaphysics, in this broad extent of meaning includes at least three distinct departments of science.
(1) Psychology, as it is called, describing the facts of the mind, of which we are immediately conscious, such as Sensation, Perception, Abstraction, Memory, Conception, Intuition and Judgment.
(2) Metaphysics proper, which investigates the necessary a prior condition and laws of thought and the ideas which determined cognition and judgment, and those necessary axioms or first principles, which are assumed in all sciences and underlie them, as the ground of their possibility and reality. And.
(3) Logic: which treats of the relations of conceptions to one another; the deduction of secondary from primary and intuitive judgments, and the laws of Synthesis, by which truths are constructed into systems. Logic may be defined as the science of Deductive Thinking. I give these clear definitions to refute the claim that the Negro is not a human personality and soulless.
The mind is the portion of our being superior to sense, which connects itself with the world of ideas and with God, and the element of which is the general and universal; it is the kindly principal in man which gives him the stamp of sovereignty and by means of which he exercises dominion over the earth, and make discoveries in arts and science. The body which according to the expression of Scripture, is taken from the earth, "is the contrast of the mind or spirit appointed to be its ministering instrument. But my learned Doctor the soul is the bond of union between mind and body, and as the union of both, it is two-fold, so that it has at once a natural (physical) side-the seat of which, according to Scripture, is in the blood-and an intellectual side. Through the soul, the mind corresponds with the body, and the body with the mind; and between mind, soul, and body there is constant mutual intercourse; of which every person may be convinced by daily experience. The highest destiny of man is not his sovereign relation towards nature, but his relation of love and service towards God and his neighbor, which can only be accomplished in the soul; and it is the perfection of the mind to combine with the soul, by which, in truth, it first becomes human." It is clearly seen that the "pet theory" of our learned Doctor is illogical and incompetent to sustain itself under the searchlight of truth. The Negro has proven that he has a mind that is capable of the highest developments. Give the Negro an equal chance in the race of life and remove the barriers of prejudice he will demonstrate his kingly power of mind. Has the Negro a soul? I answer unhesitatingly yes for it is the soul that loves and is loved. For mere genius we have respect, and bow before it, but we find there no bosom whereon to rest. In the soul, on the other hand, we can place confidence, and for it we can conceive affection, and look for its sympathy in return. The soul can sympathize both with the intellectual and what is apparent to the senses the heavenly and the earthly, the infinite and the finite because it is itself the marvelous central being which is the union of both. The divine "Logos" Jesus Christ, had a human soul so that he could have sympathy with our infirmities and draw us to Himself. It will not take a philosopher to discern that the Negro has will, sentiment or perception. The faculties of the soul are delineated in Dr. Hasskarl's argument. If the Negro has these elements or attributes of the soul he must according to logic have a soul. I believe that souls are created. "Every man is an eternal individuality framed in the image of God, and bears within himself the possibility of eternal life in bliss; he is not merely a continuing link in the long series of the human race, a repetition of what has gone before with inherited properties, but moreover at the same time a fresh point of commencement in this series." When the chains of slavery clanked on our ankles and the cry of mothers and fathers could be heard the South the slaveowner allowed religious instruction, (though meager),. to be given their slaves. They believed that the Negro had a soul and some owners felt it their duty to teach them there was a God and they had souls to save. They were taught that while the body belongs me your owner, your soul belongs to God and is destined for heaven or hell.
It is a matter of little concern to me whether I am a descendant of Adam or no, I know that I live, move, feel and enjoy all the advantages of the soul. But when a philosopher, and minister of the gospel strikes at my people I cannot keep silent. You may not be able to find traditional or history to cover my argument outside of the Bible. Why? Because white men wrote the history and had no special interest to serve. The truth is that all men descended from the dark race. The first man Adam was not a white man. You cannot prove it from the Bible history nor tradition. As to the origin of man, or of the inferior creation, reason can furnish no decision. This is a point beyond the legitimate range of scientific investigation. The existence, the distinctive characteristics, the qualities, the habits, the locality, and the mutual relations one to another, of the several races of man, and of the fauna and the flora of the several regions, or zoological provinces where these different races of man are found are all subjects for scientific research and scientific reasoning But the ORIGIN of things-of the lowest brute and of the meanest herb,just as truly as of man himself, lies beyond human observation and human consciousness. No mortal was present at the creation to witness the modeor the place in which any creature originated. No mortal has ever seen a new order of plants or of animals brought into existence. Animals and plants, and different varieties of men are found existing in certain localities, possessed of certain distinctive qualities, and exhibiting certain numerical proportions, and bearing certain obvious relations to each other, and to the locality wherein they are found. These are facts which may be observed and classified, and used as a basis of reasoning, respecting the nature, the uses, and the relative importance of these several objects; but as to the origin of any of these plants, animals or races of men, the facts observed yield no information.
Dr. Hasskarl quotes this text in article IV, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" Jeremiah 13, 23. The term Cushite, therefore, while it applies in Scripture to the Arabian races, "became also the appellative of a Negro." In this sense it is employed by the prophet Jeremiah. Luther's German translation has Mohrenland, a term equivalent to negroland, or the country of the blacks. Dr. Watts followed this meaning in the well-known words of one of his hymns:
"As well might Ethiopian slaves
Wash out the darkness of their skin,
The dead as well may leave their graves
As old transgressors case to sin."
Have we a clear history of Africa, other than what the Bible gives? Until the learned, thinking men of African descent interest themselves in writing history and leave something for the coming generations we shall expect antiquated philosophers, and hoary-headed theories to arise in each decade. "What we write remains forever." The ancients have transmitted to us very little knowledge of this great continent of Africa. The discovery of America and the West Indies gave rise to the horrid traffic in Negro slaves. In 1788 a society was formed in London for promoting the exploration of Inner Africa. Under its auspices, important additions were made to the geography of Africa by Houghton, Minigo, Park, Horneman and Burkhardt. In 1831, this association was merged in the Royal Geographical Society. The Dutch settled in South Africa as early as 1650. Thus missionaries have been pioneer of geographical discovery.
Africa, notwithstanding its terrible climate, bad government and petty wars forms one of the most interesting missionary fields in the world. Its native inhabitants, though deeply degraded, are found peculiarly succeptible to religious influences. And wherever the gospel has been preached long long enough to penetrate through their ignorance and has been preached long enough to penetrate through their ignorance and and superstition it has generally found a congenial soul. No mission in in the world has, been more successful, in proportion, to the means employed than those of the Moravians and the London Missionary Society in South Africa and the Church Missionary Society in West Africa. The Roman Catholics sent missionaries there as early as the latter part of the 15th and early part of the 16th centuries. The Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian, Episcopal and Lutheran churches are famous for their missionary zeal in the dark continent of Africa.
The Scriptures are fuller in their statements even in geography than any other ancient writing which preceded the days of the Greek geographers, who, in comparison with the Old Testament are but modern. They are so accurate as to constitute the best guide book to travellers in the countries in which occurrences of the Scripture took place. "It is not known nor agreed upon what was the original race complexion, or form of either Adam or Noah. Mr. Pickering writes on the subject (on the Races of Men), gives reasons for supposing the African to be the centre and origin of the human family." (See page 305). Again the Ethnological Journal admits that there is not now a pure race of men to be found. Dr. Bachman offers very probable reasons for the opinion that the race of men were intermediate in color and form between the black and the white and that the white are much altered now as the black. "See on the Unity of Human Race, part 2, chapter 1, p.p. 152 164." The primitive races no longer exist. All, or nearly all, the inhabitants of the earth are of mixed blood.-Ethnol. Jour. p. 129. Dr. Mott does indeed struggle hard to show that the word Cush is wrongly translated in our English Bible by the word Ethiopia. And we are willing to admit that the one word is not the etymological equivalent of the other, and that in these modern times the word Ethiopian is not by usage applied to all the descendants of Cush, or Ethiopia to all the countries they inhabit. But it is true, that by ancients Ethiopia was applied to both Asiatic and African nations. They used the term according to its sense of nations "burnt black in the face."
The doctrine of diversity of human races contemplates man as only an animal. That doctrine rests much on a mere assumption of a point questionable at the best. It overlooks the fact that in one important specific in the full sense in which species are distinguished in lower animals; the varieties of men inter-mingle freely and their offspring are not sterile, as in the case normally among lower animals. That "Pet Theory" overlooks the many weighty points in which as intellectual, speech-using and conscience-possessing beings, capable of indefinite progress and improvement, all the human races presents of resemblance and almost of identity which throw at an unapproachable distance from them all, even the highest orders of the inferior creation, rendering a classification of man on principals adapted to the brutes, inapplicable, inappropriate, and therefore unphilosophical. That "Pet Theory" involves also the disregard of an admitted axiom in philosophy, which forbids the introduction of more causes than are needed to account for the effect, since the known laws of increase will readily admit the population of the globe as now from one original human pair. From all these circumstances naturalists of eminence have rejected, on purely scientific grounds, the doctrine of diversity of races and have maintained the original identity of all the races of men.
Dr. Hasskarl is not alone the ablest advocate of his pet theory, the diversity of races who have utterly failed in all their attempts to reconcile their theory with the teaching of revelation. They are to compelled to use the word species with at least a modified meaning in their philosophical reasonings; and they are compelled also to put upon several passages of holy writ an interpretation novel, unnatural and as I stated in my last article absolutely untenable.
I therefore hold that the Negro is a part of the Genus Homo and a descendent of Ham. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male or female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.-Gal. 3:28.
IV.
The thickness of the skull of the Negro indicates neither intellectual inferiority nor structural approximation to the ourang or chimpanzee; in fact, though crania of the various races of mankind may vary, as compared with each other, throughout an almost unlimited series of minor details, they preserve inviolate their great characteristics of distinction; no intermediate condition is discoverable among them, no half human, half simian form, indicative of "Homo Ferus, tetrapus mutus, et hirsutus-the caliban of science-the link which binds man to the arboreal quadrumana." Prof. Owens says, "the distinction between the skulls of all nations and those of the simial, upon which much of character of the human face depends, and which is not destitute of importance, may here be noticed, namely the elevation, in man of the nasal bones, which form the bridge of the nose; while in the simial the nasal bones (for it is single) lies flat and depressed."
The evidences of a common humanity in all the several races of man, notwithstanding their peculiarities, are so numerous and so unequivocal, that probably the idea of a separate origin never occurred to any of the sacred writers. I would rather take the inspired writers as authority. All who take the Mosaic account of the creation, the Deluge, the confusion of tongues at Babel, and the subsequent dispersion of the descendents of Noah over the face of all the earth, will find no common sense in what Dr. Hasskarl has written. The sacred writers were intent upon conveying truth of deep import to the higher nature of man, as a moral agent as fallen and degraded, but yet capable of recovery. Before these high interests the differences of complexion, of feature, of figure, and of conformation, of language, of habits, of relation to other races and ethnological status sink into insignificance. "Since the deep researches of modern philosophers in natural history, assisted by the extensive discoveries of modern navigators, through the great enlargement of our acquaintance with the face of our globe, have opened so many sources of wonder, without affording any adequate means to arrive at the causes of the phenomena new objections have been made to the Mosaic history of the first ages of the world, which, it has been urged, must have been intended to relate, not to the whole world, but to those parts with which the Jewish people had no immediate concern. Many former, and insuperable as the difficulties occurring in that concise historical sketch may be, some arising from extreme antiquity of idiom, some, perhaps, from injury received in multifarious translations, and others from that allegorical style, always familiar and always in esteem in the East, invention still has never been able to form any theory equally consistent with the principles of the most enlightened philosophy, or equally consonant to the most authentic testimonies remaining from remotest ages, whether transmitted by human memory or borne in the face of nature." The sacred penmen were men of God and these men of God deal with man as man wherever found and under whatever clime or circumstance. It little behooves a christian minister in these enlightened days, to revive such antiquated theory as Dr. Hasskarl is endeavoring to do. The idea of presenting his two books to us as authority. Any crank can write a book. Truth is the highest authority. Is the Negro a subject of the Church or State? asks Mr. Hasskarl. Both of these questions were answered before he was born.
(A.) The Church in all ages has said "Come unto me all yea that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest." Church councils, synods, confessions and creeds have recognized man as man wherever found whether bond or free. The "Ecclesia" founded by Jesus Christ has always stood for truth, freedom and manhood. It is only in a distorted will and a perverted conscience that the light of truth has been obscured. The church as a divine institution has never dealt with the Negro as a subject of Ethnology but as a man. The Deists and all the various schools of theologians have never made the subject a part of their theology. The Negro is not a subject of the church as a Negro but as a part of the human family a brother "though carved in ebony."
(B.) Is the Negro the subject of State? asked Dr. Hasskarl. I answer in the negative. There was a time when he was a subject of the State. He was held as a slave. You remember the struggle between the North and South in regard to slavery. The civil war was not fought to free Negroes. But rather to preserve the Union and if the Union could have been preserved without emancipating the Negro we would still be in chains and sold from the auction block. God who rules the destiny of men as well as of things, put it into the hearts of the President of the United States and a part of his cabinet and others "to let my people go." Too much praise can never be given to the great Abolitionists of bygone days for agitating and making sentiment that caused the Negro as a slave to become a man. According to the rights invested by the amendments to the Constitution of this country the Negro is not a subject of the State. There is in this country to-day over (9,000,000) nine million descendants of Ham, owning ($400,000,000) four hundred million dollars of property free of all incumbrances.
There is no class of people quicker to recognize manhood in the Negro than the white people of this country. All honors to them for their philanthrophy. We have men in the diplomatic service, in congress, legislature, council chambers, register of the treasury, collector of ports and post-masters and in fact in nearly every department of government service. Editors, college presidents, lawyers, teachers, preachers and bishops. What greater evidences of humanity and intellectual accomplishments can be found in any nation within the same time and bounded by the same environments.
There are Negroes whose names are already written on the pages of history, while Rev. Hasskarl is comparatively unknown and is obliged to place his own biography at the head of each little pamphlet he writes to let us know he lives. The best biographies are usually the shortest. Is the Negro a subject of the State? Sounds ancient.
(C) The Negro has no history. Dr. Haaskarl you are mistaken again. He has a history both ancient and modern. It is a glorious one at that, but men of your opinions try to rob him of it, by begging the question and make it appear that the historians are talking of some other fellow. Negroes are abundantly represented in the pictorial delineations of the Egyptian monuments of every epoch, some of them are nearly 3500 years old, and as if to enforce the distinction of race, are placed side by side with people of the poorest Caucasian features. The delineations of negro feature supposed to be the most ancient, have not yet been identified with the epoch to which they belong." E A. in a tomb at Thebes, the age of Amontuonch an unplaced king, supposed to be before the 16th dynasty and consequently more than B C. 2000. See also in the procession of the age of Thothmes 4 at Thebes, Negroes bear tribute about B.C. 1700. At Thebes (in a catacomb). Amunoph 3 receives homage from "black chiefs of Cash in Ethiopia." Negroes are found abundantly on the monuments of Horus, Rameses II, of the 19th dynasty and Rameses III in Egypt and Nubia. In Philadelphia at Fairmount Park you may see a monument found at Belt Oalli, in Nubia, where Runses II makes war on Negroes. The great history we have and the great antiquity of the Negro race admits no question and has even led some [philosophers?] to surmise that it was the primitive stock of mankind." The question is where did the white man come from? It has has been proven that the Negro existed 3467 years ago.
The Negro has a history and you cannot rob him of it. One of the reasons why Africa is not more enlightened to-day is that some of the missionaries used the poor ignorant people for their personal gain and traded whiskey and rum instead of the giving the bread of life. I understand that the object of the series of articles is to create sentiment in the Luther in church against supporting the missionary work in Africa. I am quite sure that the wise and conservative men of the Lutheran church do not indorse such a wild cat scheme. Rev. Hasskarl's argument from begining to end is simply called from the well-known works of Noth and Agassiz.
The theory of a plurality of species and of origin in the present races of men we regard as unphilosophical, and contrary to right reason. It is unphilosophical, because it builds a towering conclusion upon a narrow and insufficient foundation. The data necessary to form a just and proper conclusion are yet few and partial. Even as it regards human skulls and bones, all the collections as yet made are very defective, while the osteology and physiology of the various races of animals has received scarcely any attention. To deduce a general and positive conclusion, therefore from such data, is altogether premature and unwarrantable. Equally unphilosophical and narrow is it to draw a conclusion as to specific difference from varieties in man, as if he were the only animal in nature, and to determine that difference which are found every day in the same acknowledged species of other animals must be regarded as proofs of a different species among men. We shall take the word of God as our guide and feel perfectly safe. From Ethnological, Philological, Exegetical research I am forced to conclude that the Negro is a (1) human being, (2) he has a soul, (3) he is made of same blood as other men, (4) he is not subject of church or state, (5) he is capable of the highest intellectual development, (6) he is a part of the great Hametic race, a descendant of Adam by the line of Noah.
Bibliographic Information: Source copy consulted: "What of the Negro Race?": Bolding vs. Hasskarl, The Democratic News, Chambersburg, Pa., 1906 (Library of Congress, American Memory Collection)
