unyielding, insuperable reality. It is désolante indeed to think, to know, that many of these
poor mortals were born, were created so ! But it appears to me to make little difference
in the sentiment of the question whether they came into the world without their wits, or
whether they lost them afterwards. And so, I would add, it makes little difference whether
the mental inferiority of the Negro, the Samoiyede, or the Indian, is natural or
acquired ; for, if they ever possessed equal intelligence with the Caucasian, they have lost
it ; and if they never had it, they had nothing to lose. One. party would arraign Providence
for creating them originally different, another for placing them in circumstances by
which they inevitably became so. Let us search out the truth, and reconcile it after-
wards.”
Here are sound philosophy and plain common sense. As the facts
are open to investigation, let us first examine them, and leave the inferences
for future consideration. I f the proposition prove true, we
may safely trust all its legitimate deductions. There is no- danger
from the truth, neither will it conflict with any other truth. Our
greater danger is from the cowardice that is afraid to look fact in the
face, and, not daring to come in contact with reality, for fear of consequences,
must rest content with error and half-belief. The question
here is one of. fact simply, and not of speculation nor of feeling.
Humboldt may deny the existence of unalterable diversities, but that
is another question, also to he settled only by a wider observation and
longer experience. The ethical consequences he so eloquently deprecates,
moreover, appear to me not to be fairly involved, unless he
assumes that the solidarity and mutual moral relations of mankind
originate solely in their relationship as descendants of a single pair..
If so, he has built upon a sandy foundation, and one which every
moralist of note will tell him is inadequate to the support of his
superstructure. The inalienable right of man to equal liberty with
his fellows depends, if it has any sanction, upon higher considerations
than any mere physical factfof consanguinity, and remains the same
whether the latter be.proved or disproved. Ethical principles require
a different order of evidence from material phenomena, and are to be
regarded from another point of view. The scientific question should,
therefore, be discussed on its own merits, and without reference to
false issues of an exciting character, if we hope to reach the truth. I
cannot forbear the conclusion that, in this matter, the Nestor of
science has been betrayed into a little piece of popular declamation,
unworthy of his pen, otherwise so consistently logical. But the acme
of absurdity is reached by those clerical gentlemen at the south, who
have been so eager to avail themselves of Humboldt’s great authority
m opposition to the doctrine of diversity, while they deny all his premises.
Do they consider all doctrine necessarily désolante, because
an argument in favor of slavery, true or false, may be based upon it ?
Humboldt does. And again, if the denial of a common paternity
involves all the deplorable consequences indicated by the latter, doôs
its assertion carry with it the contrary inferences ? They say not. If,
then the doctrine of unity gives no essential guarantee of universal
liberty and equality, why reproach the opposite doctrine with destroying
what never existed? Thus, these gentlemen must stultify either
themselves or their champion, while that which with him was merely a
rhetorical flourish becomes, in their hands, a ridiculous non sequitur.
In the Course of these discussions it became necessary to define,
with greater precision, certain terms in constant use. This was especially
the case with the word species, the loose employment of which
occasioned much confusion. According to the prevalent zoological
doctrine, the production of a prolific offspring is the highest evidence
of specific identity, and vice versa. The important results of the
application of this law to the races of men are apparent. But other
authorities deny the validity of the alleged law and its application.
“Wir dürften,” says Rudolphi, “ also wohl deswegen auf Keine Einheit
des Menschengeschlechts schliessen, weil die verschiedenen Menschenstämme
sich fruchtbar mit einander begatten.” The question of
Hybridity, therefore, presented itself to Morton in a form that demanded
attention and settlement before going farther. He seized the
subject, not to speculate, and still less to declaim about it, but cautiously
to gather and sift its facts. His first papers were read before
the Academy of Natural Sciences in November, 1846, and published
in Silliman’s Journal the next year. They contain a large number of
facts, from various authorities, together with the author s inferences.
For these, and the entire discussion of the topic, I refer the reader
to Chapter XH. (on Hybridity) in this work. But the controversy
into which it led Morton forms too prominent a part of his scientific
history to be passed over in silence. It was not of his seeking, but
was forced upon him. A literary club at Charleston, S. C., being
engaged in the discussion of the Origin of Man, the Rev. Dr. Bachman
assumed the championship of the unitary hypothesis, taking
ground upon the evidence afforded by an invariably prolific offspring.
His opponents met him with Morton’s papers on Hybridity. These
he must, of course, examine; but he first addressed Morton a letter,
of which the following; is an extract:—
Charleston, Oct. 15th, 1849.
“ We are both in the search of truth. I do not think that these scientific investigations
affect the scripture question either way. The Author of Revelation is also the Author of
Nature, and I have no fear that when we are able to read intelligibly, we will discover that
both harmonize. We can then investigate these matters without the fear of an auto-da-fe
from men of sense. In the meantime all must go with respect and good feeling towards
each other. Although hard at work in finishing the last volume of Audubon’s work, I will
now and then have time to look at this matter; and here let me in anticipation state some
of my objections................................. But I am overrun with calls of duty, and have
written this under all kinds of interruptions. I shall be most sorry if my opposition to
your theory would produce the slightest interruption to our good feeling, as I regard you,
in your many works, as a benefactor to your country, and an honor to science. I feel con