mulattoes ; and sundry instances where their intermarriages (contrary
to my antecedent experiences in South Carolina) were attended with
manifest prolificacy, j Seeking for the reason of this positive; and, at
first thought, unaccountable difference between mulattoes of the Atlantic
and those of the Gulf States, observation led me to a rationale;
viz., that it arose from the diversity of type in the “ Caucasian” races
of the two sections. In the Atlantic States the population is Teutonic
and Celtic: whereas, in our Gulf cities, there exists a preponderance
of the blood of French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and
other daririskinned races. The reason is simple to the historian.
Our States along the Gulf of Mexico were chiefly colonized by emigrants
from Southern Europe. Such European colonists belonged to
types genealogically distinct from those white-skinned “ Pilgrim
Fathers” who landed north of Florida. Thus Spain, when her traditions
begin, was populated principally by Iberians. France received
a considerable infusion of the same blood, now almost pure in
her Basque provinces. Italy’s origins are questions in dispute ; but
the Italians are a dark-skinned race. Such races, blended in America
with the imported Negro, generally give birth to a hardier, and,
therefore, more prolific stock than white races, such as Anglo-Saxons,
produce by intercourse with Negresses. Herein, it occurred to me,
might be found a key to solve the enigma. To comprehend the
present, we must understand the past; because, in ethnology, there
is no truer saying than, “ Coelum, non animam, rhutant qui trans mare
currunt." This sketch indicates my conceptions. I proceed to their
development.
Bodichon, in his curious work on Algeria, maintains that this Iberian,
or Basque population, although, of course, not Negro, is really
an African, and probably a Berber, family, which migrated across the
Straits of Gibraltar some 2000 years before the Christian era; and
we might, therefore, regard them as what Dr. Morton calls a proximate
race.
The Basques are a dark-skinned, black-eyed, black-haired people,
such as are often encountered in Southern Europe; and M. Bodiclion,
himself a Frenchman, and attached as Surgeon to the French army
during fifteen years in Algeria, holds, that not only is the physical
resemblance between the Berbers and Basques most striking, but that
they assimilate in moral traits quite as much; moreover, that their
intonations of voice are so similar that one’s ear cannot appreciate
any difference. Singularly enough, too, the Basque tongue, while
radically distinct from all European and Asiatic languages, is said to
present certain affinities with the Berber dialects. The latter opinion,
however, requires confirmation.
Subsequently to my incidental notices, Dr. Morton took up the
entire question of hybridity, with his accustomed zeal; publishing
his first two articles on it in Silliman’s Journal, 1847; after which he
continued a series of papers, in the Charleston Medical Journal, down
to the time of his death in 1851. I attach little importance to my
own labors on this subject, beyond that of attracting Dr. Morton to
its investigation. None more than myself can honor him for the
glorious triumph which his publications on this theme achieved for
science. My object, then, being solely to place the question before
the public as it actually stands, I shall use not only Dr. Morton’s
ideas, but his language, freely, throughout this chapter; merely extending
to the races of men those principles of hybridity which Dr.
Morton chiefly confined to known intermixture among the lower
animals.
Hybridity, heretofore, has generally been treated as if it were a
unit; whereas its facts are as susceptible of classification as any other
series of physiological phenomena. For the terms remote, allied, and
proximate Species, there will be frequent call; and, in consequence,
the reader is requested to look back (supra, p. 81) in this volume, to
understand the meanings which, in common with Morton, I attach
to them. Finding that the definitions customarily given of “ species”
apply as readily to mere varieties as to acknowledged species, the
Doctor proposed the subjoined emendations: —
“ As the result of much observation and reflection, I now submit a definition, which I
hope will obviate at least some of the objections to which I have alluded: S p e c i e s — a
primordial organic form. It will be justly remarked that a difficulty presents itself, at the
outset, in determining what forms are primordial; but independently of various other sources
Of evidence, we may be greatly assisted in the inquiry by those monumental records, both
of Egypt and Assyria, of which we are now happily possessed of the proximate dates. My
view may be briefly explained by saying, that if certain existing organic types can be traced
back into the ‘ night of time ’ as dissimilar as we now see them, i3 it not more reasonable
to regard them as aboriginal, than to suppose them the mere accidental derivations of an
isolated patriarchal stem, of which we know nothing ? Hence, for example, I believe the
dog-family not to have originated from one primitive form, but in many forms, f Again,
what I call a species may be regarded by some naturalists as a primitive variety; but, as
the difference is only in name and no way influences the zoological question, it is unnecessary
to notice it further.” 392
Morton bimself has suggested the objection wbicb really bolds
against bis definition; and, for myself, I should prefer tbe following:
S pec ies — a type, or organic form, that is permanent; or which has
remained unchanged under opposite climatic influences for ages. Tbe
Arab, tbe Egyptian, and tbe Negro; tbe greyhound, the turnspit,
and tbe common wild dog—all of which are represented on monuments
of Egypt 4000 years old, precisely as they now exist in human
and canine nature — may be cited as examples.