A SHORT NOTICE
OF
^ A R I E L."
BY
R. B. A., YORKVILLE, S. C.
COLUMBIA, S. C.
PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE SOUTHERN PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.
1868.
The following article was written exactly as it now appears
several weeks before the close of last year; and before I had
seen any notice taken of the pamphlet reviewed, excepting a
sermon preached in Charleston by the Rev. Dr. Girardeau. At
the request of friends I have concluded to publish it even at
this late day.
E, B. A.
Yorkville, S. C., Jan. 15th, 1868.
A SHORT NOTICE OF ARIEL.
The Negro: What is his ethnological status? Is he the pro-
geny of Ham ? Is he a descendant of Adam and Eve ? Has
he a soul? Or is he a beast in God's nomenclature? What
is his status as fixed by God in creation ? What is his relation
to the white race? B}>- Ariel. Cincinnati: published for the
proprietor. 1867.
Several days ago a pamphlet of 48 pages with the above title
was put into the writer's hands, accompanied by a request that
he would examine it and mark those passages with which he
could not agree. We have given it, as we trust, a careful peru-
sal, and now deem it not improper to notice it in detail.
On taking up an anonymous production, it is natural for the
reader to indulge in surmises regarding its author, as to who he
may be, his object in writing, his position—with other conjectures
of a similar kind. Such was the case with ourselves on opening
Ariel. At first it flashed upon us that he intended to quiz the
public on a gigantic scale. That any man in his senses should
undertake to substantiate such absurdities surpassed our utmost
credulity. On reading further and discovering that the fellow
was really in earnest, and seeing moreover the shrewdness, in
some instances, displayed, we were fain to believe that it be-
tokened a mind sadly unbalanced, not to say unhinged. The
conclusion last arrived at, however, and the one to which we
still adhere, notwithstanding the author's disclaimer, is that
this is a political '-paper," put forth in the interest of party. But
it matters not whether he be in earnest or in jest, whether a
madman scattering firebrands, arrows, and death, or a mere
politician blinded by party zeal, one thing is certain, he has
attacked the truth and his publication is doing harm. It would
be worse than useless simply to treat the matter lightly or to
deride the reasoning as unsound ; for although this is undoubt-
4
A SHORT NOTICE OF ARIEL.
edly true, yet such a course would be construed by some into
an inability to meet the argument. Besides there are many
within our knowledge, who, either from partiality for the views
advanced or some other cause, are receiving and rejoicing in
them as correct. It is for this reason that we propose briefly
to review what, under other circumstances, would be considered
as unworthy of notice.
One word here by way of personal explanation ; and what
can we better do than adopt the language of Ariel, only substi-
tuting "several" for "many." "We simply say in regard to our-
self in this day of partisan strife, religious and political, that we
take no part in any such party strife, and that it is several years
since we cast our last vote. Thus much to prevent evil sur-
mises." Nay more : we are entirely agreed with our author on
the very point which we take to be the chief aim of his pamphlet
to prove, viz., that the negro is utterly unfit for the responsi-
bilities which some seem determined to thrust upon him.
In beginning these strictures, let us endeavor to get as-clear a
view as possible of the "situation."
The reader will bear in mind that whenever anything "para-
doxical, i. e. contrary to the prevailing opinion," is advanced, the
presumption is against it, and the burden of proof lies with him
who brings it. That on the contrary the presumption is in favor
of the prevailing opinion, which must be received as true until
sufficient reason has been shown why it should be abandoned.
It follows as a matter of course that we are under no obligation,
from the nature of the case, to produce anything positive in
favor of the general belief. Should we do so, it will be over
and above what can be fairly demanded of us. All that we are
required to do is simply to show that Ariel has failed to disprove
what "the learned men of the past and present age, the clergy
and others, have assumed to be true." Call it an assumption,
if you will, it is nevertheless, according to his own acknowledg-
ment, the general belief. If we succeed in doing this, the subject
will then remain exactly as he found it.
The main question to be decided is plainly this, Is the negro of
the Adamic race f Ariel denies it, and his argument, when
analysed and condensed, may be stated briefly and fairly thus:
There is a fixed law of nature that "like begets like," that from
white parents only white children can come. This being so
A SHORT NOTICE OP ARIEL.
one of two things must be true : either there was a miracle
wrought by which some white people were changed into negroes
or else the negro had a different origin.
He first undertakes to show that there could have been no
miracle, for this is evidently the drift of what he says about the
name and the curse ; and then that the aforesaid law was true
with reference to the descent from Adam through Hoah and
Ham down to the latest generation. Having, to his satisfac-
tion, settled these points, he concludes that the negro is a beast,
and was created before our first parents. He next proceeds to
demonstrate that this same beast is a man without a soul, and
by consequence unfit for either social or political equality with
the whites.
Let us now return to the supposition of a miracle, which,
although the greatest stumbling-block in our author's way, he
affects to treat with a sovereign contempt and to dispose of in
a few preliminary remarks. How it is not our purpose to argue
either from his name or his father's curse that Ham was a negro,
but to show that Ariel has failed in what he undertook.
His name, reasons he, cannot signify anything with reference
to his color, although it does mean, 1. sunburnt; 2. swarthy ;
3. dark; 4. black (his own definition) ; for then his brothers '
names would of necessity signify their color. But they do not,
therefore his does not.
It is useless to remind the intelligent reader that in ancient
times parents frequently gave their children names suggested
by some characteristic, physical or mental, or by some circum-
stance attending the birth, or some propensity discovered. How,
Ariel reasons from the assumption that the parent would inva-
riably adhere to the very same principle with which he began.
In other words, that if a man should call his first child by a cer-
tain name because of some bodily quality, therefore he would
call his second by a certain name because of some bodily quality,
and so on. We are told in Genesis xxv. 30, that Esau was called
Edom—red—because of his hankering for red pottage. But
Ariel according to his mode of arguing would say this cannot
possibly be so, for then his brother's name would signify the
color of the food he liked best; but it does not: therefore Gen.
xxv. 30, is not true.
6
A SHORT NOTICE OF ARIEL.
We humbly submit that our author has gained nothing-at all
by what we will be pardoned for calling his nominal argument.
Let us now look after the curse. "If this effect on Ham," says
he, "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;" "God cursed our
first parents. Did this curse kink their hair, flatten their skulls,
or blacken their skin or flatten'their nose?" "God cursed the
serpent. Did the curse produce this effect on him?"—cum
multis aliis.
Ariel is here confounding together things which are entirely
different—the uttering of a curse and the evil which follows.
It would seem, moreover, that he takes the former to be the
efficient cause of the latter, whereas it is only the occasional
cause. The uttering of a curse is in its nature prophetic. The
prediction comes from God either immediately or through the
mouth of a prophet, and then the judgments are sent at the
proper time by a distinct exercise of almighty power. To curse,
Ave are told, means "to imprecate," "to Avish evil to," or "to call
down mischief upon." How evil, or mischief, is generic : it fol-
lows every curse, but the species of evil may be as diverse as
the curses are numerous. Let us see how his reasoning will
Avork. An acquaintance tells us that such and such a murderer
Avas hanged. We are led from some cause to ask hoAv he knows
it. His reply is that the murderer was condemned. But, say
Ave, that proves nothing, for we have knoAvn a great many*
condemned for crimes Avhich they had committed and none of
them were hanged. One Avas banished, another was fined,
another was imprisoned, and therefore it is impossible that this
man Avas hanged. How absurd as all this is, it is precisely of a
piece ,with Ariel's reasoning to prove that because every body
else that Avas ever cursed Avas not immediately changed into a
negro, therefore Ham Avas not.
Hcither do Ave believTe it; but Ave submit that our author has
failed to.disprove it, and that therefore "these fancies" still retain
Avhatever of force they may have had before.
Let us indulge a little in the "logic of facts" ourselves. Ariel
cannot deny that Avhenever the Bible speaks of the Moabites, it
alludes to the descendants of Moab, or of the Ammonites to the
A SHORT NOTICE OF ARIEL.
T
descendants of Ammon, (Gen. xix. 37,) or of the Canaanites to
the descendants of Canaan. It follows then from the "logic of
facts" that when it speaks of the Cnshite it refers to a descendant
of Cush. Now, in Jeremiah xiii. 23, in the Hebrew we have
it, "Can the Cushite change his skin?" (Our attention was called
to this by a sermon of Dr. Girardeau's. We examined the original
and find his assertion correct.) But who was Cush, the progeni-
tor of this race of "black-skinned, thick-lipped, flat-nosed, kinky-
headed negroes?" Alas! alas! he was the eldest son of "the
maligned and slandered Ham." Ariel has shown one thing at
least to our entire satisfaction, i. e. that Mizraim and Canaan,
second and fourth sons of Ham, and their descendants, were
unmistakably whites. (We accept for argument's sake, his
definition of that term, viz., all except negroes.) Here we are
then, reader, in a dilemma, ail of us. Either Ham was a negro
with some white progeny and some black, or else he was a white
man with some white progeny and some black. Hot yellow, take
notice, but black. How what is .there that can' solve the mys-
tery? Hothing but the supposition of a miracle. Once admit
this and all is clear; and it entirely removes the difficulty which
some have as to the radical difference of blood, skin, hair, etc.
For in performing a miracle, the extent of the change is not vital
to the question at all. God's power is boundless. And no mat-
ter when it was exercised, whether in the life-time of Ham or of
Cush or at any other point in the line of descent, it is but natural
to judge that the effect was extended to females, as well as males.
This relieves Ariel of his embarrassment with reference to
mulattoes.
He goes upon the presumption that in case of a miracle the
law that "like begets like" was interfered with. But this does
not necessarily follow at all. It is not meant that supernatural
power suspended the working of this law so that from white
parents negroes could be born. It means simply that children
already born, whether grown or not, it makes no difference
which, were at once changed into negroes. All of their offspring
then, according to said inviolable law, would be negroes 'too'.
It follows from what has been now said that there is aa
antecedent probability in favor of a miracle. And it is an admit-
ted principle that "matters of opinion, (as they are called, i. e.
where we are not said properly to know but to judge,) are estab-
8
A SHORT NOTICE OP ARIEL.
lished chiefly by antecedent-probability." (See Elements of
.Rhetoric by Archbishop Whately. Pt. 1. chap. iii. § 3.)
Should any one object here, however, that this miracle could
not have been a consequence of the curse pronounced upon Ca-
naan, we reply it is not our belief that it was ; neither does it
in any wise affect the argument. We have a theory of our own
with reference to that matter, but this is not the place to
broach it.
But let us return to the examination of Ariel's argument.
After proving, as he supposes, that there could have been no
supernatural power by which this change was effected, he next
undertakes to confirm the truth that this law is invariable in its
operations with reference to the offspring of Ham. This he
does by copious references to history, professing to trace out the
descendants of Mizraim and Canaan, while carefully avoiding
those descended from Cush, showing that the former had and
have the white characteristics. A little reflection should have
convinced him that all this adds nothing whatever to his argu-
ment. He need not have taken so much trouble to illustrate
what we will not dispute, i. e. that this law has never been varied.
We too believe that Adam and Eve and all their descendants
down to Noah were white ; and that he was white, and that
Ham, yea, the "maligned and slandered Ham" was white, and
that all of his descendants, excepting those from Cush, were
white, and that he was white. We will go further and admit
that some of the nations descended from Ham flourished greatly
for a while, and that his theory of Egyptian embalming is true,
though we do not believe it. But we ask again, what was the
use of all that splutter ? If his reasoning about the name and
the curse were a success, this would add nothing to it; and now
that it is seen to be a failure, this cannot retrieve it.
Our author here endeavors to prop up his hobbling argument
with a singular kind of crutch. His theory he claims to be in
"philosophic harmony with God's order among animals in their
creation." On reaching this we did not know but that after all
we were to have something grand, original, and decisive. And
here it is. He gravely informs us that there is a rising scale in
the creation of animals—that we can gradually ascend from the
cat to the lion, from the jackass to the horse, from the baboon
to the negro. Let it be so : what of it? We too will run up
A SHORT NOTICE OF ARIEL.
9
this living ladder, and by Ariel's permission split the topmost
round, -thus making two of it. So here we go—baboon, etc.,
gorilla, negro, white man ; for surely our author will not deny
that he too is an animal.
In order to have made even the semblance of an argument
here, beast should have been used instead of animal. But to
proceed. We are told that "the step from the negro to Adam
is still progressive and consists of change of color, hair, forehead,
nose, lips, etc., and immortality!" Well, we do not deny that
there is a step between the negro and the white man, just as
between any other two grades of animals. And we see no
reason, moreover, why the highest grade of all should not have
the best physique. With reference to the "immortality," upon
which great stress is laid, we have only to ask, supposing the
negro were a beast, how does Ariel or any one else know but
that all beasts are immortal ? It is not a settled question by
any means.
As to his theory about the origin of language, we do not see
that it affects the matter at all. It amounts to nothing more
than this, that the white man and the negro can talk, while the
other animals cannot, at least to them : and if Ariel can find any
solace in looking up to Cuffee as his teacher and benefactor in
this respect, he is welcome to it.
Let us pause a moment, reader, and review the ground over
which we have gone, in order to see exactly where we are.
Bear in mind, what we all admit, that there is a fixed law of
nature that liko begets like—that from white parents only white
children can be born.
Another fact: There are upon the earth white men and
negroes. Now, the aforesaid law existing, one of two things is
true: either (1.) a miracle was wrought by which some whites
were changed into negroes ; or (2.) the negro had a separate
origin, is a beast, and was therefore created before Adam, has
consequently no soul.
The affirmative of the second could result only from a refuta-
tion of the first. We have shown that Ariel has failed to refute
it in his reasoning about the name and the curse; and then we
have shown, positively, that it must be true judging from antece-
dent probability. It follows therefore that the negro is of the
Adamic race and that by consequence he has a soid.
10
A SHORT NOTICE OF ARIEL.
Let us now proceed. Our author, after proving to his own
satisfaction that the negro is a beast, next undertakes to prove
that he is also a man. At first we were puzzled to understand
why he should have taken such an unexpected turn. His object
undoubtedly is to show that the negro is utterly unfit to be
placed upon a level with the white man in any respect. In
order to do so he endeavors to present amalgamation in as
odious a light as possible. Now it seems to us that he could
not have effected his object better than by letting his beast alone,
and that the making of it man, instead of intensifying the dis-
gust, would tend rather to lessen it. But, unfortunately for
Ariel, he had a pet notion which must be impressed upon his
readers at all events, and this has led him into a greater dis-
play of ignorance than ever. We wish at this poirtt to record
our protest against a habit prevalent at the present day of
singling out a sin, real or imaginary, from the great mass of
iniquity, making it the unpardonable one, and teaching by impli-
cation that all other violations of God's law are matters of little
moment. This is one of the blunders made in our author's
pamphlet. Instead of knowing, as any reader of the Bible does,
that the deluge was sent because the cup of iniquity was full,
because, in other words, of accumulated transgressions, he
imagines it to have been sent on account of amalgamation.
And not only did this, according to his view, cause the deluge,
but also the confusion of tongues, the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah, and the order to exterminate the inhabitants of the
land which Israel went in to possess. The truth is, when Ariel
found that he could not conform his theory to the Bible, he de-
termined to conform the Bible to his theory. Unhappily, how-
ever, the Bible teaches that the last drop in the antediluvian
cup was the sons of God taking to themselves wives of the
daughters of men. It behoves Ariel therefore to prove that his
beasts are men before he can make his speculations plausible;
and now for his argument "so called." We quote his words:
"We read in the Bible, And God said, Let us make man in our
image and after our likeness ; which is equivalent to saying, we
have man already, but not in our image; for if the negro was
already in God's image, God could not have said now let us make
man in our image." This goes upon the assumption that the
negro was then in existence, which we have shown to be untrue;
A SHORT NOTICE OP ARIEL.
11
and our author being under the impression that such was the
case, interprets the passage in such a way as to make it har-
monize with the supposition. Logicians tell us that a proposi-
tion which is one in form may be converted into two or more
in meaning by simply giving importance to different words. A
familiar example is the following • "The Organon (1) of Bacon
(2) was not designed (3) to supersede (4) the Organon (5) of
Aristotle (6)." Let the reader on first going over this emphasize
No. 1, on the second going over No. 2, and so on, and he will
see at once what is meant. Any one at all acquainted with the
rules of exegesis knows that we have no right to isolate a pas-
•sage from its connexion and then arbitrarily fix upon a certain
interpretation, especially an unusual one, in order thereby to
establish a peculiar theory. This is what Ariel has done. His
reasoning is this : I know that my theory is correct because it
answers exactly to that interpretation. But, says an objector,
how do you know that your interpretation is correct? Why
because it suits my theory.
We have just as much right to play at this game as the author
bas, so let us try it. The proposition which we have to estab-
lish is this—There was a being who created men before God did.
You ask us how do we know it ? Our reply is that God could
not have said, let us make man, unless some one had made man
before him.
Header, we are compelled to obey Proverbs xxvi. 5, so bear
with us. No doubt if this wiseacre had read on through the
27th verse of Genesis i. and had noticed that the word own is
italicized, he would have been more confirmed in his opinion
than ever. By the way, this reminds us of a little joke. Wo
are told of a young clergyman, who, having learned that print-
ers usually designate the important word by using itcdics, deter-
mined to profit by his information. So on the following Sab-
bath, when reading 1 Kings xiii. 27, he emphasized the last word
in the following style: "And he spake to his sons, saying, Sad-
die me the ass. And they saddled him." Melancholy result !
Doubtless Ariel would think this a conclusive proof that the old
prophet was really an ass, albeit of a different color.
Another assertion of our author's is that uwhenever Adam is
personally spoken of in the Hebrew Scriptures, invariably his
name has the prefix, the man, to contradistinguish him from the
12
A SHORT NOTICE OF ARIEL.
negro who is called man simply and was so named by Adam."'
This is simply false; and as charity forbids us to accuse him of
intentional misrepresentation, we must charge it to his ignorance.
We have examined the original and find that in the 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5 verses of the v. chapter of Genesis, where special reference
is made to Adam, the prefix is wanting in every instance.
Moreover, in Genesis vi. 2, where we are told "that the sons of
God saw the daughters of men that they were fair," and where
Ariel says the prefix is wanting, arguing therefore that Adam's
race is not meant, we have found on the contrary that the prefix
is there. Thus according to his own mode of interpretation
this whole theory breaks down again, and down with it goes all
of that balderdash about "perfection hating perfection," the tower
of Babel being built by mongrels, the flat-nosed negro being
kept from the altar, and other similar stuff with which this
literary charlatan would entertain us.
We would cheerfully release you, reader, at this point, believ-
ing, if you are candid, that nothing more is necessary to reveal
the character of Ariel's production. But, lest those who are car-
ried about by this wind of doctrine should think that we are
disposed to dodge the allusions to Scripture in the latter part
of the pamphlet, we will take some notice of them.
We refer first to the author's comments on the expression,
"Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord." We
have no zeal about the interpretation of this passage and care
not whether it be understood to mean, as is the case with some,
that these men began to worship in public assemblies, having
previously done so only as families ; or whether, as Ariel pre-
fers, it means that these men began to profane the name of
the Lord. The real question is not whether they worshipped
or mocked; but who wrnre they? To prove that they were
negroes, he resorts again to his nonsense about the name. The
misfortune, however, is that in the above extract the word "men"
has no separate word corresponding to it in the Hebrew ; so his
argument from the prefix goes by the board again. Another
assertion made with unbecoming dogmatism is, that when "men
began to call upon the name of the Lord," there were none of
Adam's race in existence excepting himself and Cain, Abel, and
Seth. Ariel ought to have known that Abel was dead. He
should know moreover that when the Bible gives us in its
A SHORT NOTICE OF ARIEL.
18
genealogical tables only the heads of families, we are not to con-
elude that there were no other persons but those especially
mentioned. A little reflection will convince us that in the pres-
ent instance there were in all probability a great many. Not
to mention the rest, lot us turn our attention for a moment to
Adam. The event above referred to took place at the birth of
Enos the son of Seth—Gen. iv. 26. Now the 6th verse of the
fifth chapter informs us that Seth was at this time one hundred
and five years old. But Adam lived at that time and for several
centuries afterwards, so that there were the hundred and five
years during which, we are told, he "begat sons and daughters,"
and it seems to us that this was time enough in which to multiply
his family into a goodly number.
We next refer to the author's assertion that the tower of Babel
was built by a motley crowd of negroes and mulattoes under
the direction of their master Nimrod. In order to see the falsity
of this nothing more is necessary than to read the first part of
the xi. of Genesis. It begins thus:
1. "And the whole earth was filled with one language and one
speech. 2. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the
east that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt
there. 3. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make
brick, and burn them thoroughly; and they had brick for stone,
and slime had they for mortar. 4. And they said, Go to, let us
build a city and a tower."
Wo notice next his metaphysical development of Gen. vi. 6,
"And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth
and it grieved him at his heart." It is needless here to discuss
the meaning of certain mental exercises being predicated of the
Deity ; we may meet the writer on his own ground. He wishes
to make it appear that man here does not appty to the descen-
dants of Adam ; and this is the argument: God breathed into
Adam the breath of life, therefore "he is a part of God." God
cannot hate any part of himself; that would be "perfection
hating perfection." The reference then must be to the negro.
Ariel should have perceived that his argument proves too much
and is ex consequentia valueless. The "perfection" spoken of here,
if it means anything, means immortality. Now the rule laid
down, if true, necessarily works both ways. If "pei-fection can-
not hate perfection," then man, perfect in the writer's sense,
14
A SHORT NOTICE OF ARIEL.
cannot hate God. Will he, a professed lover of Bible truth,
agree to such a consequence? Or if so, surely he will hardly
deny that the devil hates God, and yet this malicious fiend is-
just as perfect, according to Ariel, as man is.
Turn your attention now to his reflections upon the treatment,
of the Canaanites. His doctrine is that they were to be thus
hardly dealt with, because of the great crime of amalgamation ;
that God would not take a country away from one nation of
pure-blooded whites and give it to another. Will this student
of history inform us whether the aborigines of this country had
amalgamated with negroes ? And if not, why did God take
away their lands and give them to another race ? He alleges-
too that the tribes or "ites" were not visited with vengeance
sooner, because Moses and Joshua could not tell whether the cup
of iniquity was full or not, till the fact should transpire through
the color of their skins. Does he not know that these worthy
men acted under direct orders from God himself, and went about
no great undertaking excepting by his immediate command?
Lastly we come to what was evidently intended to be a
clincher. We are told "That no man having a flat nose shall,
approach unto His altar." The inference is drawn from Leviticus-
xxi. 18, that God designed in this verse to single out the negro
and put upon him a mark of special disapprobation because of his
being a beast. Here an individual defect has been strangely
mistaken for a national characteristic. For a negro to have a,
flat.nose is natural; for a Jew to have a flat nose is a blemish r
and it is so classed. Moreover, no especial exclusion was needed
for the negro, since God had already forbidden every one, Jews-
included, excepting Aaron and his descendants, from serving at
the altar; and then in the passage referred to, he excludes all of
them who had any kind of blemish. "And the Lord spake unto
Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of
thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him
not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever
man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach; a blind
man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or anything
superfluous."
We cannot conclude without apologizing again for having
handled this dirty subject at all. We have done so purely from
a sense of duty, and with exceeding disgust.
A SHORT NOTICE OF ARIEL.
15
Let those who would lightly embrace the errors advanced
remember that they are responsible to Glod for their belief.
Let them remember, too, that should the white man, or the
negro, or both, once be convinced that there is for the latter no
hereafter, the results would be disastrous in the extreme.
&
i
>
*
/
f
i
-'t
.*1
*
, i ■
/
>; ^ v
' , ' i
'- 'v\
' . ✓ < a*
" Ai / "1
'/*-
**
r ^
/
/■
«'• <
. /
•■ J
Ir
»v
/
;y
a -r
/> .
> \ '
¥ *
(>'
*
,s
'
&<
,*■ *
/ :-
s
. t ,
* -*»
/ .-..I
' ' V
/ v
^ ■-?
<r-';
^ A
\\
\ * \
*
■f' /
/ ^
1 ' ~
i <f,
'. v:
/
/* Vfv^
>V
*> ;
</ *
$ :
ti
/