new creations, comes to the same thing as regards the doctrine of polygenists. Their object is not to enter into any theological discussions; they have been driven to it, and they will no doubt be delighted to hear that their doctrine may become developed without offending anybody. The intervention of political and social considerations has not been less injurious to Anthropology than the religious element. When generous philanthropists claimed, with indefatigable constancy, the liberty of the blacks, the partisans of the old system, threatened in their dearest interests, were enchanted to hear that Negros were scarcely human beings, but rather domestic animals, more intelligent and productive than the rest. At that time the scientific question became a question of sentiment, and whoever wished for the abolition of slavery, thought himself bound to admit that Negroes were Caucasians blackened and frizzled by the sun. Now that France and England, the two most civilised nations, have definitively emancipated their slaves, science may claim its rights without caring for the sophisms of slaveholders. Many honest men think that the moment to speak freely is not yet come, as the emancipation struggle is far from being at an end in the United States of America, and that we should avoid furnishing the slaveholders with arguments. But is it true that the polygenist doctrine, which is scarcely a century old,[86] is any degree responsible for an order of things which has existed from time immemorial, and which has developed and perpetuated itself during a long series of centuries, under the shade of the doctrine of monogenists, which remained so long uncontested? And can we believe that the slave-owners are much embarrassed to find arguments in the Bible? The Rev. John Bachmann, a fervent monogenist of South Carolina, has acquired in the Southern States much popularity by demonstrating, with great unction, that slavery is a divine institution.[87] It is not from the writings of polygenists, but from the Bible, that the representatives of the Slave States have drawn their arguments; and Mr. Bachmann tells us that the Abolitionists of Congress have been struck dumb by such an irrefragable authority! It must, therefore, not be believed that there is any connexion between the scientific and the political question. The difference of origin by no means implicates the subordination of races. It, on the contrary, implicates the idea that each race of men has originated in a determined region, as it were, as the crown of the fauna of that region; and if it were permitted to guess at the intention of nature, we might be led to suppose that she has assigned a distinct inheritance to each race, because, despite of all that has been said of the cosmopolitism of man, the inviolability of the domain of certain races is determined by their climate.