curse, that express, or even _imply_ such effects. Then in the absence of all such effects, following such curses, and as they are narrated in the Bible, whether pronounced by God or man; and there being nothing in the language beside to sustain it, and if true, Ham's posterity must be shown now, as its truthful witnesses, from this, our day, back to the flood or to Ham; and which can not be done--and if this can not be done, then all arguments and assertions, based on such assumptions, that Ham was the father of the negro or black race, are false; and if false, then the negro is in _no sense_, the descendant of Ham; and therefore, he must have been in the ark, and as he was not one of Noah's family, that he _must_ have entered it in some capacity, or relation to the other beasts or cattle. For that he did enter the ark is plain from the fact, that he is now here, and not of the family or progeny of Ham. And no one has ever suspicioned either Shem or Japheth of being the father of the negro; therefore he must have come out of the ark, and he could not come out, unless he had previously entered it; and if he entered it, that he must have _existed_ before the flood, and that, too, just such negro as we have now, and consequently not as a descendant of Adam and Eve; and if not the progeny of Adam and Eve, that he is inevitably a beast, and _as such_, entered the ark, though having the _form_ of man, and _man_ he is, being so _named_ by Adam. Such is the logic, and such are the conclusions to which their premises lead, if legitimately carried out; and by which it is plainly seen, that the position assumed by the learned of the present and past ages--that the present negroes are the descendants of Ham, and were _made so_ by his _name_, or by the _curse_ of his father--is false in fact, and but an unwarranted assumption at best. But while this conclusion is inevitable, it also reveals to us another sad fact, that the good men of our own race (the white), though learned and philanthropic, exhibit a weakness, alas! _too_ common in this our day, that anything they wish to believe or think will be popular, that it is very easy to convert the greatest _improbabilities_ into the _best_ grounds of their _faith_. The word used by God, used by patriarch and by prophet, is the _same_ word used by Noah. If the word thus used by God, and by holy men, did not produce the effect as is charged by these men, how can the _same_ word, when used by Noah, do it? And yet, on these assumptions, the faith of more than half the world seems to be now based. To expose these cobweb fabrics, called by _some_ reason, on this subject, and _Christian_ philanthropy by others, in which are involved, such tremendous conclusions, for weal or for wo, of so large a portion of the biped creation, that we feel like apologizing to our readers, for answering such _learned_ ignorance, blindness or weakness. But the meaning of Ham's name in Hebrew is not _primarily_ black.