The States and Union. [volume] (Ashland, Ohio) 1868-1872, 1870-01-19
DarWinism and Beecherism.
BY C. c. BURR.

And what Is Negro? w hat Is an
Indian? What is a Chinaman These
are questions of far greater moment to
our country just now than almost any
other. They embrace the germs of a
philosophy and a political character of
our national existence and our civiliza-
ton for all time to come And how
easily and pertly do ignorance and i'm
pertinence answer these great questions!
The popular answer requires no study,
no thought even, but only to open the
mouth, and breathe forth the senti-
ment of prejudice and delusion. Ac-
cording to present Congressional poll
tics, and the non-reasoning style of
theology, the negro is simply black
white man, the Indian red white man,
and Mongolian a yellow white man.
The adsurdity of this language covert
ly enough expresses the absurdity of
the common idea that these different
species are actually but one type of
man, changed OF, modified by climate,
and other fortuitous agencies. Their
natures, it is affirmed, are alike, their
capacity originally the same, and they
only wait for the merciful tide of. cir
cumstances to return them again to q
common fold. True, science has in
fallibly demonstrated that thediferent
types of men are, anatomically, physi-
ologically, and psychologically as un-
like each other as any of the various
species of the lower animal kingdom.
True, there is no more reason IN refer
ring the negro and white man to a
common origin, than there would be
in referring the ass and the horse to
one parentage. But that stubborn fact
does not, in the least, embarrass a be-
lief which is founded in mere ignor-
ance and traditional prejudice. So in
fatuated are our theologians and our
Christian politicians-(are there any
Christian politicians ?)-with this stu
pendous delusion of some sort of ne
gro equality, that they, without being
aware of it perhaps, have adopted the
most stealthy and the most fatal of all
modern theories, known by the name
of Darwinism-though this is far from
being a correct name for the theory,
since Lamarck, and other scientific IN
fidels, were before Darwin in its advo-
cacy Mr.. Darwin must divide the
honors of his philosophy with such
men as Huxley, of England Pouchett,
of France; and Vogt, Heckle, Role,
and many others, of Germany, What
is called Darwinism, is simply an in
genious philosophy to get rid of the
idea of a God in the phenomena of
life. The world and all its inhabitants
were not created, they grew. All life
had but one, and that a chemico-phys-
ical, origin. All types of men, and
all different species of brutes, were
produced by the action of material
forces. This is really the crude phil
osophy of what is called Daracinism.-
"And hence" says Pouehett, the most
noted of the French apostles of this
infdel theory, "there is no human
kingdom as distinguished from the an
imal kingdom" One form of animal
life has only been developed out of an
other. The white man is only an i'm
proved negro; the negro an improved
ape; and so on, down the whole chain
of animal beings, until we arrive at
the simple rudimentary forms of life, |
which are hardly distinguishable from
ignoranic matter. This is the philoso-
ply. And why not? If climate, and
other fortuitous agencies, can make
the difference between the white man
and negro, why might it not also bridge
the difference between the negro and
the highest species of ape, and so on,
down, down, through all the descend
ing gradations, until we reach the oys-i
ter and the monad? This inidel phil
osophy is in perfect logical harmony
with the climatic theory of the differ
ences between white men, Indians, Ne
grocs, and Mongolians. If the chem