But we have said before, that we intentionally selected Canaan, the youngest son of Ham, and for a purpose. This we will now explain. Had Noah named Ham instead of Canaan, when he declared that he should be a servant of servants to his brethren, the learned world are of the opinion that it would have forever, and _satisfactorily_ settled the question, in conjunction with the meaning of his name in Hebrew, _that Ham was the father_ of the present negro race--that if _this curse_ had been _specifically_ and personally directed against Ham, instead of his youngest son Canaan, then, no doubt could exist on earth, but that Ham was, and is the father of the negro. This is the opinion of the learned. But, why so? Could not the curse affect Canaan as readily? If it could affect Ham in changing his color, kinking his hair, crushing his forehead down and flattening his nose, why would it not be equally potent in producing those effects on Canaan? Surely its effects would be as great on one person as another? It was to relieve our learned men from this dilemma, among others, that we took up Canaan, to show, that although this _curse_ was hurled specifically and personally at Canaan, by Noah, that a servant of servants should he be, yet it carried _no such effects_ with it on Canaan or his posterity. Then, if it did not make the black negro of Canaan, how could it have produced _that effect_ on Ham, Canaan's father? Canaan had two _white_ sons, with long, straight hair, etc., peculiar alone to the white race, and not belonging to the negro race at all, which is proof that the curse did not affect his hair or the color of his skin, nor that of his posterity. Canaan had two white sons by his first wife, Sidon and Heth. They settled Phoenicia, Sidon, Tyre, Carthage, etc. The city of Sidon took its name from the elder. That they were white, and belong to the white race _alone_, we have before proven, unquestionably. But we will do so again, for the purpose of showing what that curse was, and what it did effect, and why this order of extermination. Canaan was the father of all these _ites_. Nine are first specifically named, and then it is added, "and who afterward, were the families of the Canaanite spread abroad." Was not Canaan as much and no more the father of these _ites_, than he was of Sidon and Heth? Certainly. Then why doom them and their flocks and herds to extermination, and except the families of Sidon and Heth, his two other sons? Were they morally any better, except as to their not being the progeny of amalgamation with negroes? They were not. Then why save one and doom the other? If these _ites_ were no worse _morally_ than the children of Sidon and Heth, then it is plain, that we must seek the reason for their destruction, in something _besides moral delinquency_? Let us see if we can find _that_ something? The Bible tells us, that God in one of his interviews with Abraham, informed him