The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1901-12-18
THE ORIGIN OF THE NEGRO.
The Scriptures are Searched for
Light on the Question,

n ANAe oh thS AuSStlOu,
u The following interesting article c
> the origin of the Negro is from The nc
y of Rev. Dr.. j. b Mack, of Fort Mil
and Is reproduced from the Chariot
3 Observer: /:
Whence the Negro? This is dar
subject; an exceedingly perplexin
problem. Yet its solution is vital I
some doctrines of the church, and ais
vital in determining the nature of ou
I national government. Indeed if w
think of the strange introduction O
Negro slavery into our land and il
peculiar phases in colonial days if w
notice how it colored almost every uu,s
ton in Congress from 1889 to 1861 i
we study the causes Of our great civi
) war If we consider how this matte
has made the South almost solidly Dem
ocraLic aud the North almost solidl,
Republican from 1868 To 1900, we mus
conclude that this problem has beer
the main pivot of our national differ
enccs and doings. This being the case
IL Is clear that Gods Providence intends
for our nation to solve this problem
AS the Lord made Esther to be Queer
OF Persia for special purpose, so He
has made our country to be Is queen
among The nations of the world for q
wonderful work, viz The determin.
ing OF the relations of the various races
10 each other, and especially the rela.
ton of the white man TO the Negro.
Hencc we have in our land all of The
1our races: the white man of Europe
The red man of America, the yellow
man Of Asia and the black man of
Africa.
The position of the Negro has ever
Deeh very varied and always peculiar.
Some have regarded him as a beast,
others as IN inferior race of mankind,
aud others as the image of God cut in
ebony as the white man is that image
cut In ivory. Today IN some States
the negro can vote, held Office and in
tcrmarry with The whites. In other
States he can vote and hold office, but
the line is drawn at marriage. In
other States he is voted (sometimes
even alter he Is dead) but cannot ride
III The same car or eat at the same table
with white folks while III some others
even the right of voting is Virtually
denied him.
Now is it right to make these dis
tlnciions9 is it right to dcbar the
Negro from voting and from holding
Office, if he is intelligent 2 Is it right
To forbid his eating and drinking and
marrying with white folks anywhere,
provided the whites are willing? The
answer to these questions depends on
The answer to.the question, +" Whence
the Negro ?" Let me mention you
four answers
L. Evolution asserts that "from the
mud came mollusk, then q reptile,
then bird, then beast of low grade,
then monkey, then negro, and then
INC higher grades of men up 10 the
white man. This is an easy way to &C
count for the origin Of the negro, and
as lal"e a. it is easy. Science denies
III FOR u has never yet found the "miss-
ing link" between the reptile and the
blrd, between the bird aud the beast,
between the monkey and the man.
Scripture denies it; for it's aflirms that
the Divine law is that "like begets
like" Racial instinct denies it; for
every true white man abhors the
thought of deriving existence from
negro ancestors. Religion denies il;
for the idea of our blessed Savior Icing
descended from negro is revolving to
the Christian heart.
Ill. That the negro is n talking
beast; n being in human form, but
without soul. Such say that the
Hebrew word "chai," in Guncsis / "a,
which Is translated "beast," does not
does not mean qlndruped but biped,
and refers TO the negro. But this is
not true; for repeatedly in the Bible
does "chai' mean quadruped. To
see the absurdity of this theory you
hAVo only to read the i1th chapter of
leviticus, where three times the Is.
raelites are granted permission to eat
the "chal." If that word referred to
the negro, then the Jew would have
one article of food far mo,e repulsive
even than swine's flesh! This theory
ls worse than untrue, for il robs untold
millions of their immortal souls and of
any hope of salvation. 1t is contrary
~ Scripture and is contradicted in it's
influence and results.
Ill. That then were Two distinct
creations of man. There was fist the
creation of mankind in general, which
would include all the inferior races, and
this is recorded in Genesis l 26. Then
came The creation of the white man,
the royal race of earth, and this is re-
corded in Genesis L, ~. This theory
bases it's claim upon four things IN
these two verses.
Q). The first word in verse 81 is
improperly translated $780," 1t should
be translated "and," which proves
that verse q is not explanatory of
verso 2G, but implies an additional fact,
viz; another creation.
(2). The word used in verse 26 to
describe what God did is "asah, -
which only means to make or manu-.
facture; while in verso 81 it is "bara,"
"hich means to create and Is The
highest and stl ongest word TO describe
Gods power. Hence as the word used
is higher and nobler in verse 81 than
in verse 26, it is argued what was Gre.
ated was higher and nobler.
O). In verse Us what God created
is expressed by Que word, " Adam. d
Now there is no definite article mol
demonstra,ive pronoun connected with