[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse"

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD"

"Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy"

Woodworking and Construction Hacks

"CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination"

"NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law"

"Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing"

Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine

Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn.

After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning

Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate

Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending.

Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar”

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny"

"Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is"

Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner.

Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him

South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien

GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis

Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash

New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms

Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania

Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally

"It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala

Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump

Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive'

(Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Historical
See other Historical Articles

Title: Letter on the Relation of the White and African Races in the United States
Source: GPO 1862/Internet Archive
URL Source: https://archive.org/details/letteronrelation3623mitc
Published: May 18, 1862
Author: Rev. James Mitchell/nolu chan
Post Date: 2016-11-26 20:12:05 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 27817
Comments: 92

Look at what the Lincoln Administration mass produced at the Government Printing Office at taxpayer expense. Rev. James Mitchell wrote a letter to Lincoln and was brought on board as the Minister of Emigration. Mitchell was the man with a plan to perfect the existing colonization plans of the Lincoln administration. Mitchell had previously recruited Lincoln for the Colonization Society. Mitchell was kept onboard until removed by President Andrew Johnson. Under Lincoln, the letter was published by the General Publishing Office in 1862 as a pamphlet. The pamphlet may be viewed and/or downloaded at the link given below.

Letter on the Relation of the White and African Races in the United States Showing the Necessity of the Colonization of the Latter
Addressed to President Abraham Lincoln
May 18, 1862

[At p. 24-25] Let us then, earnestly and respectfully recommend as a remedy for our present troubles and future danger, the perfecting the proposed plans of the administration in regard to those two conflicting races, and the careful and gradual removal of the colored race to some desirable and convenient home. This suggests that the tropical lands of our own hemisphere should be devoted to their use, and that all available means should be seized to pour a flood of Anglo-African civilization on the tropical lands of the old hemisphere most accessible to us (Western Africa.) In doing this we take from imperialism its temptation to tamper with our republicanism; for by preserving the heterogeneous character of our population, we perpetuate our republican equality in social and civil life.

It further suggests that our legislation should cover the wants and well-being of both races, and that statesmen should consider, first, the good of the white race, then, the good and well-being of the black; making at least as liberal appropriations for the colonization of the Indian, upon whom millions on millions have been expended with but imperfect success in the cause of civilization, whilst the slender means of the friends of the African civilization have produced lasting results. Some affect to fear that the man of color will not remove to a separate locality. It is not to be expected that a race, which has hardly attained a mental majority, will rise in a day to the stature of the men who found empires, build cities, and lay the ground work of civil institutions like ours; nor should they be expected to do this unaided and alone. They should receive the kind attention, direction, and aid of those who understand such things; nor will the world condemn a gentle pressure in the forward course to overcome the natural inertia of masses long used to the driver's will and rod. Let us do justice in the provision we make for their future comfort, and surety they will do justice to our distracted Republic. If they should fail to do this, there would then be more propriety in weighing the requirement of some to remove without consultation, but not till then. The more intelligent men of color can now see the necessity that rests upon us, and they will aid us in this work. We know that there is a growing sentiment in the country which considered the removal of the freed man, without consulting him, "a moral and military necessity" — as a measure necessary to the purity of public morals and the peace of the country; and this unhappy war of white man with white man, about the condition of the black, will multiply this sentiment. But we cannot go further now than suggesting, that the mandatory relation held by the rebel master should escheat to the Federal government in a modified sense, so as to enable his proper government and gradual removal to a proper home where he can be independent.

  • Mitchell was perfecting the proposed plans of the administration.
  • Mitchell advised Lincoln to use a "gentle pressure" to overcome inertia.
  • Shortly thereafter, at a meeting arranged and attended by Mitchell, Lincoln used "gentle pressure" on black leaders.
  • Mitchell advised Lincoln that "the more intelligent men of color ... will aid us in this work."
  • Lincoln met with intelligent men of color, as arranged by Mitchell.
  • The plan met with unexpected resistance. It met with resistance not only from Black leaders, but from Radical Republicans as well.
  • Lincoln never gave up hope and Mitchell was kept in his position until after Lincoln's death.
  • Lincoln was never able to overcome the political opposition to his plan.

U. S. Department of the Interior (RG 48): African Slave Trade and Negro Colonization, Records of, 1854-1872. M160. 10 rolls.

Roll 8: Communications relating to Rev. James Mitchell, emigration agent of the Department of the Interior, Apr. 8, 1862-June 6, 1865

https://archive.org/details/letteronrelation3623mitc

The Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress
Series 1. General Correspondence. 1833-1916.
James Mitchell to Abraham Lincoln, May 18, 1862 (Pamphlet)

LETTER
ON THE RELATION OF
THE WHITE AND AFRICAN RACES
IN
THE UNITED STATES
SHOWING THE NECESSITY OF THE
COLONIZATION OF THE LATTER

ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1862

MAY 18, 1862

Page 3

His Excellency ABRAHAM LINCOLN,

SIR: The conviction of this nation being wide-spread, and becoming more general each day, that the peace and prosperity of the country and the permanency of our republican civilization, require a separation of the colored or negro race from us, suggests that the statesmen whose duty it is, from time to time, to reflect in their legislative movements such public sentiment as is well grounded and correct, should now assume and fix firmly in the national policy on this subject such fundamental principles of action as will prove lights and guides to the men who in after ages shall be obliged to meet and battle with difficulties like those you have encountered; for the experience of the past shows that the future is fraught with danger to the peace of this country. The calamity that now rests upon us had long been foreseen and deprecated by the wise and reflecting men of the past generation, and untiring efforts have been made to avoid them by many of the men of this. But the mass of the nation would not heed the words of warning; they abandoned themselves to the lead of our enemies, foreign and domestic; hence this storm of blighting war. Yet, terrible as is this civil war between men of kindred race for the dominion of the servant, future history will show that it has been moderate and altogether tolerable when contrasted with a struggle between the black and white race, which, within the next one or two hundred years must sweep over this nation, unless the wise and prudent statesmen of this generation avert it. In that struggle the issue will be the existence of the weaker race, and we must not flatter ourselves that the most numerous, in all localities, will be the white race.

Permit us, then, to ask you aid and influence to induce the people of this Republic, through their National and State governments, to make a speedy, energetic, and uniform move through all their courts of legislation, all their means of influence and agencies of political power, to produce the separation of those races, the removal of the colored race to a proper locality, and establishment in independence there. Surely this exercise of influence is a legitimate prerogative of the Chief Magistrate, the guardian of national peace, who, being convinced of impending danger to the country, has the undoubted right to notify the nation

Page 4

of its approach, and recommend the remedy. Being grateful for the positions you have assumed, and the recommendations you have made, we herein respectfully submit a few reflections intended to sustain (though feeble may be the effort) the policy proposed, and asking that, so long as God grants you place and power at the head of this great nation, you will continue to this subject the cure its magnitude merits and our national dangers demand.

The rebellion that is not shaking the foundation of the nation, is the struggle of Imperialism to establish itself in a republican land. Imperialism, the government of the many by the few, the dominion of unchecked, despotic will, is one of the curses resulting from man's apostacy. For ages it has been regarded as a necessary evil amongst men — a thing of Divine appointment — and the fortunate incumbents of this power, for long centuries, have sheltered themselves behind this opinion, and strengthened themselves in this conviction. Nor are they altogether without authority in this; for, as despotic rule is a curse, we must admit that instruments for its infliction have been permitted.

Republicanism, on the other hand, is a deliverance from this curse of despotic rule — and the law is supreme — meteing out equal protection and equal justice. Such was the plan of our republicanism as projected by the fathers of the nation; such has been the practice of most of the communities embraced within the broad field of the Republic; but in other sections of the land a different economy prevailed and continues to prevail; an imperialism of a circumscribed character has been practised, which necessarily saps the foundation of republicanism and educates the people to imperial rule. This has been the source of our danger, and in this manifest weakness the imperialists of Europe have found the greatest temptation to tamper with our prosperity and integrity.

Our danger in the future arises from the fact that we have 4,500,000 persons, who, whilst amongst us, cannot be of us — persons of a different race, forming necessarily a distinct interest; the germ of a distinct political power, not now fully disclosed but to be disclosed in future ages; and from the fact that the government applied to those people is not republican, but anti-republican, having many of the imperial marks about it, the toleration of which has educated many

Page 5

of our people to look with favor on a radical change of our republican institutions.

The social and civil evils resulting from the presence of the negro race are numerous, and their magnitude can be better discovered by the stranger than the victims of the calamity.

Amongst them we rank first and most destructive to the purity and simplicity of society — which strikes deeper at the root of good order, and mines most effectually the foundations of that citadel of national stability, the family — the license of the races, which is giving to this continent a nation of bastards. No apology can be given for this; none will be received by the Great Ruler; he will punish for this with fearful severity. It should not be concealed from the authorities of the land, and the parties interested should not be permitted to disguise the criminal fact, that the most immoral maxims are retained amongst this people, and made the justification of crime in this regard — all predicated on the hope of the colored race to rise by the illicit absorption of their blood into the mass of this nation. Time and again has this hope been expressed in our hearing, and as often denounced as the source and cause of crime. That political economist must be blind indeed; that statesman must be a shallow thinker, who cannot see a fearful future before this country, if the production of this mixed race is not checked by removal. So sure as time sweeps on, giving intelligence, members, strength, and more corrupt European blood to this class, so sure the period will come when this mixed population will assume the offensive, and possibly the next great civil war will be the conflict of this race for dominion and existence. It is strange, passing strange, that our moralists will not look this part of the matter in the face, and shape their precepts accordingly.

The second social evil, we rank the production of strife in the church courts of our land, and the damage to Christian faith resulting therefrom.

The third is our civil contentions, which are now threatening our national existence; the second precedes the third, and must always go hand and hand with it. The war of words and opinions always precedes the clash of arms. Take a review of the past twenty years; the men of the North, actuated no doubt by benevolence, demanded reforms in the clear and well known abuses resulting from the presence of the negro. The questions were introduced into the

Page 6

church courts; the reforms advocated and agitated, not always in correct temper; the controllers of this undesirable population took the alarm; they sought refuge in Scripture precedents; northern resolutions and sermons were met by southern resolutions and sermons; each section succeeded in manufacturing a public opinion and conscience adverse to the other; indeed, much of the fearful responsibility of this scene of blood rests on the hierarchies of the sections. Very soon the contest passed from the church courts to the legislative halls; antagonistic laws were enacted, and States, as such, were arrayed against each other; finally, the conflict passed from the forum into the field, and there we are trying to decide the first great military struggle — but we fear not the last, arising from the presence of the negro race — demonstrating that this population is in the way of the peace of the country, the cause of immorality and misrule.

Thus far we have found that their presence here disturbs our social structure. We come now to examine how far our civil structure is damaged by this population.

As a nation we claim to be a republic, and for our institutions we claim that they are republican. We mean thereby that this nation is anti-despotic, and our institutions guarantee equal rights to all our citizens — equal protection to all under our jurisdiction. Such is the theory; but what is the practice? We hold within our limits four millions and a half of negroes, most of them slaves, under a worse form of bondage than was that of Russia. In the latter case the religion and domestic rights of the servant are respected; in the former they are disregarded in the legal provision of many slave communities. Here, in our opinion, lies the great crime of American slavery; not so much in requiring the servant to work without a fixed compensation as in disregarding the law of God; in discrediting the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child — which are ordinances of Heaven, that no community may disregard without bringing Divine judgments on itself — this with forbidding the use of letters to the slave, making God's word a sealed book, are crimes of the first magnitude, all resulting from the disposition to hold those people here for profit and gain. Can such an institution be cherished within a republic? We think not. However, with the relation of master and slave the inhabitants of the free States have agreed not to interfere, for the constitution must be observed

Page 7

strictly. But there is one clause of this sacred compact which requires the Federal government to "guarantee to the several States a republican form of government." Those few words, in our opinion, form the true constitutional instrument or article, which, when rightly rendered and applied as a test to State constitutions and institutions, will free all the States under the compact from this corrupting institution of African slavery. When rightly construed it must and will require the gradual removal of such anti-republican elements and peoples as cannot be engrafted on the national stock; especially when it is found that those anti-republican elements and peoples have long been regarded by the diplomats in the interest of imperialism as the fulcrum on which to rest the lever designed to overturn our whole civil structure and rend us into fragments. As a nation we are learning wisdom by the things we suffer.

The history of the great rebellion is not yet complete; the unseen influences which have produced it are not fully disclosed; but the dim outline begins to take form and place, so that the true friends and actual enemies of the Republic will soon be discovered, and each receive the place in history that infamy or honor may award. When the work is complete, when the last act in the great and fearful drama shall have been closed, it will be found that our country has been the victim of a conspiracy, the magnitude of which is without a parallel in the history of nations — though wicked, yet rendered grand through the combination of potent and princely influences arrayed, and to be arrayed, against us, because of the issues in question, and the result of the conflict — issues of no local character, but involving the fate of that system of government known in contradistinction to imperial rule as republicanism.

It is admitted on all hands that our mixed and servile population constitute the root of those issues and quarrels; what shall be done with them is the question of the hour. Suppose the relation of master and slave abolished throughout the nation, what is the new relation you will give the freed men of the slave country? This is the question which requires solution. When the relation of master and slave ceases to exist — as cease it will in time — what shall be the rights and franchises wherewith you will endow and vest the 4,000,000 freed men of the South?

To this one class of statesmen answer, we will grant them equal franchise, social and civil, and thus incorporate

Page 8

them into the body of the nation; we will Africanize, and thus remove the difficulties in the way of our republicanism. I have yet to learn that any respectable statesman has dared to assume this position, or that any large or influential body of men have attempted to defend political measures based on this system of assimilation. We are free to admit that such a system of assimilation or amalgamation is necessary, provided you will to retain those people here, under the jurisdiction of our republican form of government; nay, we maintain, that our fundamental laws demand equal rights to all our citizens. This is a cardinal principle that cannot be ignored; the name and claim are empty unless we extend those rights. To extend them, is to open every social and civil avenue to this African mass: the office, the legislative hall, the family; to pour the blood of near five million Africans into the veins of the Republic, and that, too, in the face of the most solemn protests of the sections most to be affected by this repulsive admixture of blood — the country drained by the Mississippi — the border free and slave States of the West, who think they deserve better things of their brethren of the East than an attempt to engraft the African race on their country as a permanent population. It should be known to the men of the East that the fear of having African blood engrafted on the future population of the great valley, is becoming a formidable power at the West; it has nerved the arms of thousands in this conflict; it has said to the slave despots, "you shall not Africanize this land," the heritage of our children; and what it has said in tones of thunder, and written in blood-stained characters with pointed steel, it clothes in subdued tones and words of warning to the men of the Exeter Hall school, who, far removed from the scene of danger, see not the degradation of this admixture of race.

Let the friend of English views, the disciple of Exeter hall, approach one of these western men and attempt to reason with him on the subject; he may tell him that it is not in keeping with the spirit of the age to exclude the African race from the rights and privileges of the Republic. He will answer that his social and civil structure was made for white men, not for black men; that he is opposed to social equality with the negro, and therefore opposed to the civil equality of such people with him, because social equality is a condition of society wherein each member,

Page 9

however dissimilar his circumstances in life to those of his neighbor, may attain by industry or fortune to that very social position which his neighbor holds; that this condition of social equality is predicated on civil or political equality, for there can be no social equality without it, such a supposition is absurd; that the government of his country is republican, and as such required a homogeneous population, and that republicanism is applicable to such and such alone — a people in which each man is essentially the equal of his neighbor; that by a homogeneous population he means not this color or that color, but a population that can and will amalgamate on legal and honorable terms; that he does not choose to regard the negro as his equal, and if disposed to regard him as his equal in mind and worth, he does not choose to endanger the blood of his posterity by the proximity of such a population; that here is no command in the Word of God that will oblige him to place this race on the high road to such an amalgamation with his family; and if not with his family, not with that mass of families he calls a State. He will say that a family, and that collection of families which constitute his State, have the right, beyond all organic law, to say who shall or who shall not be received into their bosom and made members of their society; that the American people, in the exercise of this right, have admitted the white races, because they could amalgamate such on legal and honorable terms, whilst they rejected the black because they could not or would not amalgamate on legal or honorable terms. He will point to the recorded opinion of the Supreme tribunal of the nation as to citizenship. He will tell you that he is a sovereign on the soil he treads, and as such has as good a right to protect the purity of his blood in future ages as has the sovereign of England, and to enact laws thereto. Nothing but the authority of the Divine law will change his purpose to hedge himself in and erect legal protections against this possible admixture of blood, which he sees endangers the peace of society more than the intermarriage of England's royal heir with plebeian line.

The student of Exeter Hall may then, with self complacency, point to the corruption of blood where slavery is cherished. And what has he accomplished by that? He rouses the pride of his antagonist, causing him to hate slavery all the more, and we much mistake his character if he does not answer with the emphasis of indignation. Where men are truly moral and religious, the white and

Page 10

black races do not mix, so that the influence of religion will never effect fusion, or destroy the right of choice in the parties. All attempts to destroy this right of choice for himself or his family he will regard as an aggression, and repel with feeling, which if provoked by constant irritation and factious opposition to his local interests, can summon armed aid. Hence I have said we are destined to see other wars in the conflict of races, unless wisdom becomes our guide.

I trust my fears in this regard are not well grounded; but let the stranger go amongst the people of the West and South, as I have done, and propose any other plan of meliorating the unfortunate condition of the free man of color than that of removal to an independent home, and the mass of the people will regard him with more than jealousy. What is it gives the hate and ranchor, the venom and the ire to this wicked rebellion amongst the poorer classes of the South? It is love for the negro? No, but it is the hatred of those who would engraft, as they say, negro blood on the population of their country. All such they call by what to them is the sum of all evil, abolitionists — showing that they confound the anti-slavery men of all schools, who are not out-spoken colonizationists, with that small class of northern theorists who defend amalgamation. What is it that causes the free masses of the West to mutter suppressed displeasure and threats, such as have been often heard, against their brethren of the New England States, when the negro question is discussed? It is this ill-defined fear that New England aims at engrafting negro blood on the masses of the Mississippi valley, by embarrassing the colonization and separation movement, as has been their habit. We must, therefore, rank this now latent Eastern and Western feeling of sectional hate, which only slumbers because of a traverse antagonism, as an additional evil because of the presence of those people.

We must regard the extension of equal social and civil rights to this class of persons as distasteful to the mass of the nations; the majority will never submit to it; and attempt to enforce it will lead to restlessness and trouble in the West; nor will citizens made in the East for western or southern use, answer a wise and peaceful purpose. This ends the remedy of the first class of statesmen; it falls short of the evil it proposed to remove — it does not bring national quiet.

Page 11

A second class come in and propose a restricted franchise for the freed men of the country: Let them remain laborers and pay them for their labor; they will make you a valuable peasantry, say our English friends of the court end of London; you can employ them through all coming time; it is not necessary nor desirable to endow them with the rights of republicanism; see our fine peasantry; in England and Ireland, but few, if any of them, vote; but few, if any of them, hold real estate; it is not necessary that they should. Why not construct such a peasantry out of your freed men?

Our English friends, and those on this side who follow their views, "will never choose to comprehend the nature of our republican society and institutions," which can no more tolerate or accommodate a disfranchised peasant class, that it can accommodate a slave class; they forget, or affect to forget, that slaves and peasants deprived of the right of citizenship, and suffering social degradation, are incompatible with the genius of our republicanism. A disfranchised peasant class is essential to an aristocracy, or a monarchy; it is one of the appendages of imperialism; there could be no lords, or nobles, unless there were ignoble serfs and peasants; these must exist as a substrata on which to rear the higher orders and classes of society in a monarchy — sweep them away, and imperialism, in all its forms, falls to the ground; advocate their establishment, and so far you advocate the overthrow of republicanism and the establishment of imperialism.

One of the admitted necessities of a country covered by a classified or heterogeneous population, is a strong central government, with restricted franchise; privileged ruling families; strong military arm; the governing power going down from the head or throne, not as with us, up from the people. This is the actual condition of the States now in rebellion — the condition to which they have been drifting for years. Their manifest policy is to centralize the governing power in the hands of the few. Remove that few by special chartered rights above the laboring masses, and then govern by a strong military pressure, if necessary; this, in our opinion, is the overthrow of republicanism and the establishment of imperialism.

It is time it was known to the American people that this ruin of republicanism and establishment of imperialism is the condition of society which many of the rulers of the

Page 12

Old World wish to superinduce on this continent, but especially on this nation, for therein the courts of Europe see the sure and lasting guarantee of the perpetuity of their own imperial rule. To assure monarchy in Europe and extend its dominion down to the indefinite future, all that is necessary is to revolutionize our republican society and engraft privileged classes on us, which will surely end in a throne; for the heads of privileged families will quarrel amongst themselves, unless regulated by a supreme chief or president, who always end by assuming the crown.

Well do the nobility of England know that the negro race constitute the vulnerable point in our republicanism; some of them understand the embarrassments of our situation as well as we do ourselves. They know that we cannot make republican citizens out of our negro population. Having thus shadowed the two theories of the English school in what we have already said, let us note their management of "the American question," to our prejudice and well-nigh our ruin.

The management of this most dangerous question in American policy, though unworthy a Christian State, does honor to the political skill of the oligarchy, the finger of whose diplomacy has intermeddled with the business, the interests, and fate of every nation known, and which this day permits no rival people or power to rise without earnest efforts to retard, restrict, or to destroy.

The early statesmen of this nation saw more distinctly than their successors the dangers arising from two incompatible races in the same country, and foresaw the fearful conflicts that must result from their contact. Actuated alike by policy and humanity, they resolved to enter on the gradual emancipation of the slave and the separation of the races. So soon as the friends of human liberty in the country had defined this plan of emancipation, connected with the removal or colonization of the freed men beyond the limits of our Republic, just so soon did the men of England object, and present other plans to our American philanthropists of a widely different character, not suited to the structure of republican institutions. The English plans and theories were enforced by the exercise of all the moral and personal influence that the upper classes of that empire could bring to bear on the subject. The effect was to divide our good men amongst themselves; divide their plans, divide their influence. We were thus divided, whilst the people

Page 13

of England were a unit. They had but one cardinal plan for us, and that was to fasten this people permanently on the soil of our country. "Emancipation on the soil" was their watch cry, and the creation of a colored peasantry out of the freed men. To enforce this plan upon us two agencies were used, the Puritan and the Cavalier; the first addressed himself to the North, the last to the South. The thunders of Exeter Hall were directed upon us, and made echo and re-echo over hill and dale of our wide-spread land. The English plans were enforced by the pulpit, and the press-printed matter, and the agencies of lecturers, together with appeals to the ecclesiastical bodies of our land, and by what was more remarkable, the open mission of a member of the British parliament, who came to aid in the work of division and distraction, but especially for the prostration of all schemes of relief.

Those English agencies found a ready people amongst the polished thinkers, the benevolent and philosophic minds of cold and calm New England, who sometimes see a man of color, just enough of this to call up the well springs of benevolence, and exercise the feelings peculiar to the well ordered brotherhood of man. Here an English party and an English interest found a lodgement. Parker, Philips, and others, uttered the watch cry of opposition to the separation of the races; they talked of abstract rights and privileges peculiar to the denizens of the great domains; they loved the negro so much and well, they would plant the dusky mass permanently amongst the people of the East! Oh, no! But amongst the people of the southwest; notwithstanding the most earnest and emphatic protests of the States in that locality.

Thus the plot thickened and the controversy grew warm. New England went with the men of Exeter Hall, whilst the central communities, most endangered by an admixture of blood, advocate the removal of the negro on such terms as would be agreeable to all. This interest found its most able advocates in the Middle States and the Mississippi valley. Amongst the chief advocates of this policy, stood that true representative of American statesmen, Henry Clay; but he and his friends had a third powerful party, or interest to resist. The fragments of the old tory party, entrenched in South Carolina, under the lead of John C. Calhoun, and those who sympathized with him in other Southern States; the advocates of a colored peasantry

Page 14

Under bonds of perpetual servitude; the men of the Gulf school took advantage of the division in the ranks of the emancipationists, and whilst they were rendered impotent by their differences as to plans, those advocates of perpetual slavery moulded the southern mind to suit themselves, and proclaimed the Divinity of slavery; and under the inspiration of European imperialism, established the dogma, that the few have a right to rule, and that it is the duty of the toiling millions to obey.

By both these extreme interests the horrors of expatriation were proclaimed and denounced. It will be remembered that when Mr. Clay, at the request of some of his friends, wrote a letter to Judge Robinson, showing the necessity of a separation of the races as a measure of national policy, the Exeter Hall men were sadly outraged, and the London press covered him with reproach; whilst the court end of London, and the American planting interest sneered at the folly of expatriating our labor; notwithstanding they knew that Europe was giving this country an adequate supply of labor, for all purposes of national prosperity and wealth, and at this hour we have more than we can employ.

General Taylor, when he assumed the government, was moved to do and say something in the same direction. It will be remembered he recommended a revision of the laws relating to the slave trade, so as to admit of colonization on the west coast of Africa, giving his influence to the well remembered "Ebony Line," a line of transports designed to carry colored persons to Africa. On disclosing this policy and its discussion in this country, the men of England dispatched the Hon. George Thompson, member of the British House of Commons for Tower Hamblets, to this country to abuse the advocates and friends of this measure; and well he performed his work. He called the plan of separation a venerable humbug, and could find no terms too offensive for its advocates. This was his second visit; he had visited this country in 1839; those visits had no other object but to divide the thinkers of this land, the philanthropists of this much distracted country, on the question of emancipation, and prostrate all schemes for the removal of the blacks, who he knew, and his masters knew, stood more in the way of our country's peace and progress, than any other human obstacle. Well did Mr. Thompson know, well did his masters, the diplomats of the British empire know, that we

Page 15

Could not make republican citizens out of our 3,000,000 negroes, (now 4,500,000,) and remain free from faction and from strife. What did they require of us then? What do they demand of us now? Not only that the colored race shall be emancipated — a matter for which all our good men pray; but they required more. Exeter Hall was the agent of the demand, and the good and true, yet deluded men of New England, endorsed the bill, asking retention on the soil after the act of emancipation should take place, unaccompanied with colonization, unattended with separation. We see that the London press has again opened its batteries on the colonization plan of this government, and we shall not wonder if they make it one of the counts in their new bill of indictment. May God be our help and guide, for we have embarrassments enough.

It is presumed that the men of the Mississippi valley, and the loyal men of the South, can look calmly on such a demand as places side by side with their children a nation of blacks 4,500,000 strong, soon to double and quadruple, with the dark and fearful prospect of a strife of race, and a possible corruption of blood in future generations, and sure changes in the civil institutions of this country in future years? Can it be supposed, with reason, that they will regard with indifference those men far removed in their northern or island homes, from possible contact with this undesirable population, who sneer at the dread and alarm of those sons of our Angle-Saxon line located in the west and southwest, who fear the future and would avert its dangers?

Thus wrought England at the North; but equally potent has she been with the men of the South. She has a man for every work and every interest. Nor did it require so much effort to mould the opinions of the South. Her nobility and titled classes have always found strong supporters in South Carolina, amongst the remnants of the old tory families. Those lordly planters were always in good odor with the nobility of England. The leaders of the Gulf school no doubt received assurances of sympathy. Revenue laws, tariff regulations, federal customs and duties, were regarded by both these parties as oppressive exactions not to be endured, but to be disregarded and nullified; that thereby the bands of mutual friendship might be drawn closer, to result in a substantial and lasting reunion. In South Carolina England's royal interest and aristocratic pride were enshrined with a hope of future resurrection. For eighty years they slumbered.

Page 16

It was but a slumber; the germ of future life was there. The petulance, the bursts of passion, the flippant talk of disunion, the actual effort in the days of Jackson, all betray a hope, a dependence on some outside power, some stay and support in the hour of need. Carefully was this fostered and slowly has it matured under the skilful hand of J. C. Calhoun and his followers, whilst the smiles and promises of British nobles, like the genial sun, has caused the royal crop to grow. Dr. Russell came to the south as George Thompson came to the North, the aid and advocate of an oppressed people, the friend of the gentlemen of the Gulf States; the truthful reporter of their virtues, their wrongs and injuries; the reflector of noble patronage and promiser of ribbons, stars and coronets. Under his able hand the royal crop became rapidly ripe, and with care he trained upwards its young shoots of revolutionary ambition. But the Trent case spoiled all his calculations; he and his masters were baffled for the time by the prudence and wisdom of the Administration, and the few men in London who are really our friends.

George Thompson and Dr. Russell are representative men of their class — puritan and cavalier — but whether puritan or cavalier, always English, intensely English, always anti-American, and dictatorial to their kinsmen of the Western hemisphere.

The tories of the South, and the men of Exeter Hall, unite in their opposition to the removal of the negro from very different reasons; but so far as the result is concerned, it serves the aim and end of British diplomats to distract and divide our plans and measures of national relief.

Such in our opinion is the plot of this conspiracy, to which the Emperor of the French, we fear, has lately lent such secret aid and direction as to become the master of the storm; and that, too, in contravention of the three great potent spells of his hitherto successful policy — non-intervention, universal suffrage, and the unity of nationalities, or races, with which he has brought the nations of the old world to his feet. We trust that it is now evident to him that the issues in our controversy, if disturbed by Eastern diplomacy, must become Eastern questions too; for the nations must and will examine the causes and reasons for our policy and conduct; whilst it is well known that American theories are dangerous to all systems of imperialism.

But to return. The American people, the victims of this

Page 17

management, abandoned themselves to the lead of two schools in policy, both, so far as the negro is concerned, driving in different ways at the same result — that of making the negro a permanent occupant of the Republic, as a dis-franchised laborer, or serf, with the sure corruption of republicanism as a result.

The best and most philosophic view we have seen of the Southern plans and schemes, is that presented by L.W. Spratt, published in the Charleston Mercury, of February 13th, 1861, part of which we will now quote in justification of the charge made above, that the South aims at a change of our republican government, and desire the introduction of a privileged ruling class, possibly a monarchy. Throughout this strong, strange, and bold letter, we find the doctrines of those who call for a strong government — the government of the few, and the disfranchisement of the many. The following is his truly philosophic view of the situation:

"The South is now in the formation of a slave republic. This, perhaps, is not admitted generally. There are many contented to believe that the South, as a geographical section, is in mere assertion of its independence; that it is instinct with no especial truth — pregnant of no distinct social nature; that for some unaccountable reason the two sections have become opposed to each other; that for reasons equally insufficient, there is disagreement between the peoples that direct them; and that from no overruling necessity, no impossibility of co-existence, but as a mere matter of policy, it has been considered best for the South to strike out for herself and establish an independence of her own. This, I fear, is an inadequate conception of the controversy. The contest is not between the North and South as geographical sections — for between such sections, merely, there can be no contest; nor between the people of the North and the people of the South, for our relations have been pleasant, and on neutral grounds there is nothing to estrange us. We eat together, trade together, and practice yet, in intercourse, with great respect, the courtesies of common life. But the real contest is between the two forms of society which have become established, the one at the North and the other at the South. Society is essentially different from government; as different as is the nut from the bur, or the nervous body of the shell-fish from the bony structure which surrounds it; and within this government two societies had become developed as variant in structure

Page 18

and distinct in form as any two beings in animated nature. The one is a society composed of one race — the other of two races. The one is bound together but by the two great social relations of husband and wife, and parent and child; the other by the three relations of husband and wife, and parent and child, and master and slave. The one embodies in its political structure the principle that equality is the right of man — the other that it is the right of equals only. The one, embodying the principle that equality is the right of man, expands upon the horizontal plane of pure democracy; the other, embodying the principle that it is not the right of man, but of equals only, has taken to itself the rounded form of a social aristocracy; in the one there is hireling labor, in the other slave labor; in the one, therefore, in theory, at least, labor is voluntary; in the other involuntary; in the labor of the one there is the elective franchise, in the other there is not; and, as labor is always in excess of direction, in the one the power of government is only with the lower classes, in the other the upper; in the one therefore, the reins of government come from the heels, in the other from the head, of the society; in the one it is guided by the worst, in the other by the best, intelligence; in the one it is from those who have the least, in the other from those who have the greatest, stake in the continuance of existing order; in the one the pauper laborer has power to rise and appropriate, by law, the goods protected by the State — when pressure comes, as come it must, there will be the motive to exert it — and thus the ship of State turns bottom upwards; in the other there is no pauper labor with power of rising; the ship of State has the ballast of a disfranchised class; there is no possibility of political upheaval, therefore, and it is reasonably certain that, so steadied, it will sail erect, and onward, to an indefinitely distant period. Such are some of the more obvious differences in form and constitution between these two sections which had come to contact within the limits of the recent Union. And perhaps it is not the least remarkable in this connection, that while the one, a shapeless, organless, mere mass of social elements in no definite relation to each other, is loved and eulogized, and stands the ideal of age, the other comely and proportioned with labor and direction, mind and matter in just relation to each other, presenting analogy to the very highest developments in animated nature, is condemned and reprobated. Even we ourselves have hardly ventured to

Page 19

affirm it, while the cocks crow, in fact, are ready to deny it; and if it shall not perish on the cross of human judgment, it must be for the reason that the Great Eternal has not purposed that still another agent of His will shall come to such excess of human ignominy.

"Such are the two forms of society which had come to contest within the structure of the recent Union. And the contest for existence was inevitable. Neither could concur in the requisitions of the other; neither could expand within the forms of a single government, without encroachment on the other. Like two lobsters in a single shell, if such a thing were possible, the natural expansion of the one must be inconsistent with the existence of the other. Or, like an eagle and a fish, joined by an indissoluble bond — which, for no reason of its propriety, could act together, where the eagle could not share the fluid suited to the fish and live — where the fish could not share the fluid suited to the bird and live — and where one must perish that the other may survive, unless the unnatural union shall be severed, — so these societies could not, if they would, concur. The principal that races are unequal, and that among unequals inequality is right, would have been destructive to the form of pure democracy at the North. The principle that all men are equal and equally right, would have been destructive of slavery at the South. Each required the element suited to its social nature. Each must strive to make the government expressive of its social nature. The natural expansion of the one must become encroachment on the other, and so the contest was inevitable. Seward and Lincoln, in theory at least, whatever be their aim, are right. I realized the fact and so declared the conflict irrepressible years before either ventured to advance that proposition. Upon that declaration I have always acted, and the recent experience of my country has not induced me to question the correctness of that first conception. Nor is indignation at such leaders becoming the statesmen at the South. The tendency of social action was against us. The speaker, to be heard, must speak against slavery; the preacher, to retain his charge, must preach against slavery; the author, to be read, must write against slavery; the office-holder, to continue, must redeem the pledges of the candidate. They did not originate the policy, but they pandered to it; they did not start the current, they but floated on it, and

Page 20

were as powerless as drift-wood to control its course. The great tendency to social conflict pre-existed; it was in the heart of the North — it was in the very structure of Northern society. It was not a matter of choice but of necessity, that such society should disaffirm a society in contradiction of it. It was not a matter of choice but of necessity that it should approve of acts against it. In possession of power, it flowed to political action on the south, as fluids flow to lower levels. The acts of individuals were unimportant. It I had possessed the power to change the mind of every republican in Congress, I would not have been at pains to do so. They would but have fallen before an indignant constituency, and men would have been sent to their places whose minds could never change. Nor in fact, have they been without their uses. As the conflict was irrepressible; as they were urged on by an inexorable power, it was important we should know it. Our own political leaders refused to realize the fact. The zealots of the North alone could force the recognition; and I am bound to own that Giddings and Greeley and Seward and Lincoln, parasites as they are, panderers to popular taste as they are, the instruments, and the mere instruments, of aggression, have done more to rouse us to the vindication of our rights than the bravest and the best amongst us.

"Such, then, was the nature of this contest. It was inevitable. It was inaugurated with the government. It began at the beginning, and almost at the start, the chances of the game were turned against us. If the foreign slave trade had never been suppressed, slave society must have triumphed. It extended to the limits of New England, pari passu; with emigrants from Europe came slaves from Africa. Step by step the two in union marched upon the West, and it is reasonably certain, had the means to further union been admitted, that so they would have continued to march upon the West; that slave labor would have been cheaper than hireling labor; that transcending agriculture, it would have expanded to the arts, and that thus, one homogeneous form of labor, and one homogeneous form of society — unquestioned by one single dreamer, and cherished at home and honored abroad — would have overspread the entire available surface of the late United States. But the slave trade suppressed, democratic society has triumphed. The States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware found an attractive market for their slaves. They

Page 21

found a cheaper pauper labor to replace it — that pauper labor poured in from Europe; while it replaced the slave, it increased the political power of the Northern States. More than 5,000,000 from abroad have been added to their number; that addition has enabled them to grasp and hold the government. That government, from the very necessities of their nature, they are forced to use against us. Slavery was within its grasp, and forced to the option of extinction in the Union, or of independence out, it dares to strike, and it asserts its claim to nationality, and its right to recognition among the leading social systems of the world.

"Such, then, being the nature of the contest, this Union has been disrupted in the effort of slave society to emancipate itself; and the momentous question now to be determined is, shall that effort be successful. That the republic of the South shall sustain her independence, there is little question. The form of our society is too pregnant of intellectual resources, and military strength, to be subdued, if in its products, it did not hold the bonds of amity and peace upon all the leading nations of the world. But in the independence of the South is there surely the emancipation of domestic slavery? That is greatly to be doubted. Our property in slaves will be established. If it has stood in a government, more than half of which has been pledged to its destruction, it will surely stand in a government, every member of which will be pledged to its defence. But will it be established as a normal institution of society, and stand the sole exclusive social system of the South? That is the impending question, and the fact is yet to be recorded. That it will so stand somewhere at the south, I do not entertain the slightest question. It may be overlooked or disregarded now. It has been the vital agent of this great controversy. It has energized the arm of every man who acts a part in this great drama. We may shrink from recognition of the fact; we may decline to admit the source of our authority; refuse to slavery an invitation to the table which she herself has so bountifully spread; but not for that will it remain powerless, or unhonored. It may be abandoned by Virginia, Maryland, Missouri; South Carolina herself may refuse to espouse it. The hireling laborer from the North and Europe may drive it from our seaboard. As the South shall become the centre of her own trade, the metropolis of her own commerce, the pauper population of the world will pour

Page 22

upon us. It may replace our slaves upon the seaboard, as it has replaced them in the Northern States; but concentrated in the States upon the Gulf it will make its stand; condensed to the point at which the labor of the slave transcends the wants of agriculture, it will flow to other objects; it will lay its giant grasp upon still other departments of industry; its every step will be exclusive; it will be unquestioned lord of each domain on which it enters. With that perfect economy of resources, that just application of power, that concentration of forces, that security of order which results to slavery from the permanent direction of its best intelligence, there is no other form of human labor that can stand against it, and it will build itself a home, and erect for itself, at some point within the present limits of the Southern States, a structure of imperial power and grandeur — a glorious Confederacy of States that will stand aloft and serene for ages amid the anarchy of democracies that will reel around it.

"But it may be, that to this end, another revolution may be necessary. It is to be apprehended that this contest between democracy and slavery is not yet over."

Such are the prescriptions and views of those advocates of anti-American theory. Is it wonderful that the life of the Commonwealth has been placed in jeopardy, and that this day we are undergoing the throes of exhausting civil war? Does it require further proof that we have been partly the victims of others, and partly in the position of the mariner without chart or compass, who vainly tries to reach the haven without a plan or policy? Is it strange that British statesmen, from their distant standpoint, saw this convulsion for many years approaching, and spoke of our troubles with the assurance of prophets. Did they not "foresee, because they foreknew?"

If England is truly our friend, she has now a golden opportunity to disclose it. Let her people withdraw their opposition to the colonization of our blacks; let her open up the way for their settlement in Central America; continue to foster Liberia; manifest more sympathy for our work of making republican freemen, and less for making disfranchised peasants; more for men who are their own masters, and less for those who lord it over the servant; more for the men who make their own laws and rulers, and less for those who rule by divine right — provided such a thing is possible in a people who can see no political wisdom outside the British constitution, which provides for the three great

Page 23

estates, king, lords, and commons — then will we believe her friendship sincere. We are not forgetful of the palliating fact, that her press and statesmen cannot, dare not, discuss the true reasons why the American people must colonize the negro, lest they should precipate the republican tendency of their own people, by telling them that that system of government requires an equality of civil rights and franchise. Such discussion would be fatal to their empire and their power.

The government of Great Britain is composed of a few thousand titled and privileged persons, located in a small island, who are born to rule and govern. From their isolated position it is not possible for them to come in contact with the numerous, heterogeneous, and inferior tribes and races under their rule. They are thus protected from possible admixture of inferior blood, not only by their isolated position, but by carefully cultivating aristocratic pride of birth, of rank, and caste. From this small centre they extend their rule over a vast empire, the power not going up from the people, as with us, but going down to the people,and extending out to them through the iron arm of imperial authority. The British government, as a strong centralized power, can with ease throw the iron bands around differing tribes, heterogeneous masses, and distant provinces, and, by external pressure, give unity to the whole. Such a government can distribute just so much civil liberty and elective franchise to the home population, distant tribes, heterogeneous populations, and remote provinces, as may be regarded safe for the ruling classes. Hence, some of the people of Great Britain are electors, others not; some of the provinces have large liberties, other have not; equal rights for all the people being no part of the British system.

How can such a people comprehend the necessity or use of removing the man of color? And those of them who do, dare not discuss it. The usual course with them, therefore, is to sneer or misrepresent our views and plans of colonization, and hold in light esteem the fears of those large portions of the American people, know[n] as colonizationists, who have neither the citadel of an island home, nor the laws of rank and class to protect them against this repulsive admixture of blood. Here we stand on the open plain of republican institutions and plain simplicity of manners; all the guards peculiar to European society have been broken down,

Page 24

obliged by our fundamental laws to give equal rights to all our citizens. What is to protect us as a people from degenerating as a race, but the resolve to receive no blood from the other races but that which can be honorably and safely engrafted on the stock of the nation. As we understand it, this is the only right you reserve, when you lay the liberties and privileges of a great republic at the feet of the nations of the earth. You reserve the right to choose your future citizens; but to such as you cannot receive, you say, not as empires do, come and serve us and we will bless you with our iron rule; but you say, go and establish a government like this, as for our people, the men of Europe, we constitute one family, ordered so of God, and by him kept compact and together through the ages gone; we will restrain cupidity, and refrain from extending dominion into your tropical home, go and establish such a political family for yourselves; you shall have our aid, our fraternal sympathy and support; we will tax ourselves to give you nationality and freedom. Such have been the utterances of our great men of the present. Then why should England murmur at our giving nationality to the negro? It is the best our Republic can do for them and ourselves. However, we will express the conviction that many of the gentlemen of the present English administration are truly our friends, but hey are embarrassed in their position by the republican tendency of their people, as this nation has been by the imperial tendency of ours; yet how can tat nation, or any other, object to our work of colonization? Does not this work necessarily imply the gradual emancipation of the slave and the entire extirpation of the institution of slavery? For how can slaves be colonized unless first freed?

Let us then, earnestly and respectfully recommend as a remedy for our present troubles and future danger, the perfecting the proposed plans of the administration in regard to those two conflicting races, and the careful and gradual removal of the colored race to some desirable and convenient home. This suggests that the tropical lands of our own hemisphere should be devoted to their use, and that all available means should be seized to pour a flood of Anglo-African civilization on the tropical lands of the old hemisphere most accessible to us (Western Africa.) In doing this we take from imperialism its temptation to tamper with our republicanism; for by preserving the heterogeneous

Page 25

character of our population, we perpetuate our republican equality in social and civil life.

It further suggests that our legislation should cover the wants and well-being of both races, and that statesmen should consider, first, the good of the white race, then, the good and well-being of the black; making at least as liberal appropriations for the colonization of the Indian, upon whom millions on millions have been expended with but imperfect success in the cause of civilization, whilst the slender means of the friends of the African civilization have produced lasting results. Some affect to fear that the man of color will not remove to a separate locality. It is not to be expected that a race, which has hardly attained a mental majority, will rise in a day to the stature of the men who found empires, build cities, and lay the ground work of civil institutions like ours; nor should they be expected to do this unaided and alone. They should receive the kind attention, direction, and aid of those who understand such things; nor will the world condemn a gentle pressure in the forward course to overcome the natural inertia of masses long used to the driver's will and rod. Let us do justice in the provision we make for their future comfort, and surety they will do justice to our distracted Republic. If they should fail to do this, there would then be more propriety in weighing the requirement of some to remove without consultation, but not till then. The more intelligent men of color can now see the necessity that rests upon us, and they will aid us in this work. We know that there is a growing sentiment in the country which considered the removal of the freed man, without consulting him, "a moral and military necessity" — as a measure necessary to the purity of public morals and the peace of the country; and this unhappy war of white man with white man, about the condition of the black, will multiply this sentiment. But we cannot go further now than suggesting, that the mandatory relation held by the rebel master should escheat to the Federal government in a modified sense, so as to enable his proper government and gradual removal to a proper home where he can be independent.

"God ordained in the beginning a separate and distinct subsistence for the great races of men, 'when he separated the sons of Adam,' (when) 'he set the bounds of the people,' 'when he determined the times before appointed,

Page 26

And the bounds of their habitation." An observance of this Divine economy is essential to the peace and happiness of the human family, whilst every departure from it, caused by cupidity or ambition, results in oppression to the man, and corruption to the few.

We earnestly pray that a perpetual barrier may be reared between us and that land of the mixed races of this continent — Mexico. That, so far as this nation is concerned, we shall forever guarantee the integrity of her country, and so adjust our policy, that she might gradually receive our colored people, which when added to her already large body of five and a half or six millions of people of mixed race, would give her a population of near 12,000,000 persons of mixed caste, and, in the course of half a century, she will have a strong and compact community of near twenty million persons of color. It is the conviction of millions that this should be the line of policy towards Mexico and Central America. As Abraham and Lot agreed to separate their conflicting retainer and dependents, the one going to the right and the other to the left, so let those two governments agree to divide this continent between the Anglo-American and mixed races, the latter taking that which nature, in her wisdom, has prepared for them, and which for beauty, fertility, and grandeur of scenery, cannot be equaled on the globe — a country once the seat of empire and home of ancient civilization, he monuments of which abound in Central America.

If we would retain our republicanism, it must become a fixed principle with us not to add territory to our country on the south, unless that territory is uninhabited; for every square mile added which is encumbered with a mixed race of local and fixed habits, (unused to migration like the Mexican and Central American Indian, and Negro races,) adds danger, trouble, and sure decay to republicanism. Statesmen may boast that "it is our manifest destiny to annex all the adjoining country and cover it with our institutions." With all due respect to them, we say they speak without reflection. Our republican institutions are not adapted to mixed races and classified people. Our institutions require a homogeneous population to rest on as a basis; without this basis, the continuance of republicanism, for any great length of time, is impossible.

"Power is ever stealing from the many to the few," and ambitious and designing men are ever on the alert to take

Page 27

advantage of actual or accidental differences in race, nationality, or religion, to divide the masses of a republic into permanent factions or bands; the effect of which, is the introduction, first of an oligarchy, to be soon followed by a monarchy. The true preservative against this tendency is a removal of slaves and serfs; a thorough amalgamation of such populations as we agree to receive — educated electors and citizens, reverence for God and his word, which will give moral strength to the nation; and this will ever prove a guard against imperialism.

Such are the difficult alternatives for American and African; but they are not so hard on the African as the sufferings now resting on millions of Americans, because they were not considered long ago. Let us not talk of the hardships of separation and migration, in the light of burning cities, ruined fortunes, States desolated, murdered kindred, homeless families, widowed mothers, helpless orphans, and the nameless woes of this struggle of imperialism to regain its hold on a free people. If we wish to retain our republicanism, or rather perfect what Washington and Jefferson began, we should adopt as nearly as we can the above rules of life and government. It is then we can present to the world a compact and united people — educated and powerful — honoring God and his word — free from cupidity, that cause of aggression and wrong — making our own rulers, and respecting them when made. In this position, and with these qualifications, in the order of Providence, we must become "the light of the world."

We will close this plea for the nationality of the negro and the peace of this nation, by making a few inquiries.

Will not New England, which is now placing untold treasure and the best blood of hers sons on the altar of the country, go one step further and sacrifice therewith pride of opinion in reference to the gradual removal of this people, hereby taking away the conflict of opinion as a first step to unity of national counsel, to be followed we trust by national peace?

Will not the loyal men of the South and West cut up by the roots every false principle in southern policy that bears the imprint of that apostle of imperial rule, John C. Calhoun, and remove from place and power such as have been untrue to the teachings of Washington and Jefferson on the negro question? or will they stand up in the light of this age, the inflexible advocates of an inexorable servitude

Page 28

for the black man, until the surcharged thunder-clouds of other and worse revolutions burst on their country?

Will not the men of England enable us to respect, if not love, the land which has given us our language, most of our institutions, and national life, by permitting us to mature plans and opinions in harmony with our civil and social structure, undisturbed by the doctrines of imperial society and life?

And will not the good men of this country sink party in patriotism in the support of the wise measures already proposed on this subject, asking the intelligent free man of color to reflect and act in harmony with such measures as tend to peace?

May the Power which rules the destiny of nations grant that the above may receive an affirmative answer, and that your hands may be strengthened in this hours of peril!

Respectfully submitted

JAMES MITCHELL
Washington, May 18, 1862

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: nolu chan (#0)

The Anglo-Saxons, having deported a people from Africa to exploit them economically, now found itself desirous of being free of them. How quaint.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-26   21:59:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: nolu chan (#0)

"and this unhappy war of white man with white man, about the condition of the black, will multiply this sentiment."

He certainly understood that the war was about black slavery.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-26   22:13:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: nolu chan (#0)

I cannot say I hold a great deal of respect for Lincoln. While it is true he did abolish slavery, his aloof attitude towards the black people was that although they would be free they would never be equal to the white man. What Lincoln and those he appointed as his fair layman to do his dirty business failed to realize is that it is not the black race or the Mongoloid race (Indians) that suffers God's condemnation but rather it is the Caucasian race.

Since the days when the Roman soldiers conquered the original Israelites (who were black), from the land of Judah, to be sold and scattered from their lands overseas and transported by Christopher Columbus to America, for the sake of raping the land of gold and precious metals to the present day of the creation of ISIL to bring upon more havoc and instability among all nations, America is now doomed for its own judgment soon to come. America does not represent the land of good and plenty and home of the free. To the people of Europe, America is recognized by a symbol known as the Statue of Liberty; which does not stand for liberty but instead symbolizes ISIS and the land of lawlessness.

It is time that Americans wake up from their slumber and start doing their own researching. History books like to tell us how great Lincoln was in abolishing slavery but what history fails to tell us is how the black people became indentured servants in the first place and when all of this first begun. Where did these indentured servants come from? To begin with America did not have slavery until shipments of these slaves came here as early on as the 1300's. And back then, Africa was formerly known as the biblical Ethiopia, the land referred to in our bibles as Eden and that its was also the Land of Noah and that it was this area was not only the birthplace of mankind but also of civilization.

Were you to send the American black people back to this region today, they would not survive unless they joined ISIL, one that was created here in the United States. Meanwhile, the ones who created ISIL, sit back and watch this bloodsport take place while the moneychangers continue their operations.

Shame on Abraham Lincoln walking around like some pompous righteous man he appeared to be. If anything he was a fraud. If he had actually read his bible, he would have known that at the time of the creation of mankind, his ancestors were black; black just like in the days of Yeshua.

goldilucky  posted on  2016-11-26   22:33:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Vicomte13 (#1)

The Anglo-Saxons, having deported a people from Africa to exploit them economically, now found itself desirous of being free of them. How quaint.

Go to black Africa and spend some time there. It will clarify your thinking.

rlk  posted on  2016-11-26   23:30:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: goldilucky (#3)

To begin with America did not have slavery until shipments of these slaves came here as early on as the 1300's.

What is your source for your claim that the slave trade to America began in the 1300's?

The African slave trade did not begin with Britain or America.

Prince Henry the Navigator, under King Alfonso V of Portugal, sent Antão Gonçalves on a voyage and he returned with a unique purchase. It was the beginning of the African slave trade. Some slaves were gifted to the Pope, who in turn gifted a large chunk of Africa to King Alfonso V, and proclaimed the right,

"to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery...."

Indeed, it was the Lord's divinely inspired work. The 1455 Papal Bull, Romanus Pontifex proclaimed that,

The Roman pontiff, successor of the key-bearer of the heavenly kingdom and vicar of Jesus Christ, contemplating with a father's mind all the several climes of the world and the characteristics of all the nations dwelling in them and seeking and desiring the salvation of all, wholesomely ordains and disposes upon careful deliberation those things which he sees will be agreeable to the Divine Majesty and by which he may bring the sheep entrusted to him by God into the single divine fold, and may acquire for them the reward of eternal felicity, and obtain pardon for their souls. This we believe will more certainly come to pass, through the aid of the Lord, if we bestow suitable favors and special graces on those Catholic kings and princes....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanus_Pontifex

Romanus Pontifex, Latin for 'The Roman Pontiff',[1] is a papal bull written in 1455 by Pope Nicholas V to King Afonso V of Portugal. As a follow-up to the Dum Diversas, it confirmed to the Crown of Portugal dominion over all lands south of Cape Bojador in Africa. Along with encouraging the seizure of the lands of Saracen Turks and non-Christians, it repeated the earlier bull's permission for the enslavement of such peoples. The bull's primary purpose was to forbid other Christian nations from infringing the King of Portugal's rights of trade and colonisation in these regions.

[...]

The bull praises earlier Portuguese victories against the Muslims of North Africa and the success of expeditions of discovery and conquest to the Azores and to Africa south of Cape Bojador. It also repeats earlier injunctions not to supply items useful in war such as weaponry, iron or timber to either Muslims or non-Christians. The substance of the Bull's articles are as follows:

The Roman pontiff, successor of the key-bearer of the heavenly kingdom and vicar of Jesus Christ, contemplating with a father's mind all the several climes of the world and the characteristics of all the nations dwelling in them and seeking and desiring the salvation of all, wholesomely ordains and disposes upon careful deliberation those things which he sees will be agreeable to the Divine Majesty and by which he may bring the sheep entrusted to him by God into the single divine fold, and may acquire for them the reward of eternal felicity, and obtain pardon for their souls. This we believe will more certainly come to pass, through the aid of the Lord, if we bestow suitable favors and special graces on those Catholic kings and princes, who, like athletes and intrepid champions of the Christian faith, as we know by the evidence of facts, not only restrain the savage excesses of the Saracens and of other infidels, enemies of the Christian name, but also for the defense and increase of the faith vanquish them and their kingdoms and habitations, though situated in the remotest parts unknown to us, and ...

the said infante ... believing that he would best perform his duty to God in this matter, if by his effort and industry that sea might become navigable as far as to the Indians who are said to worship the name of Christ, and that thus he might be able to enter into relation with them, and to incite them to aid the Christians against the Saracens ...

...to conserve their right and possession, [the said king and infante] under certain most severe penalties then expressed, have prohibited and in general have ordained that none, unless with their sailors and ships and on payment of a certain tribute and with an express license previously obtained from the said king or infante, should presume to sail to the said provinces or to trade in their ports or to fish in the sea,

...since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit -- by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors, nor without special license from King Alfonso and his successors themselves has any other even of the faithful of Christ been entitled hitherto, nor is he by any means now entitled lawfully to meddle therewith.

[...]

Paul III publicly sanctioned slavery in Rome in 1545, the enslavement of Henry VIII in 1547 and the purchase of Muslim slaves in 1548.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-27   2:19:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Vicomte13 (#2)

He certainly understood that the war was about black slavery.

Nah.

A Greater Evil, Even to the Cause of Human Liberty Itself

What, exactly, compared to slavery, was it that Lincoln considered a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty itself?

The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 2, page 130

Abraham Lincoln
July 6, 1852

HONORS TO HENRY CLAY

Having been led to allude to domestic slavery so frequently already, I am unwilling to close without referring more particularly to Mr. Clay's views and conduct in regard to it. He ever was, on principle and in feeling, opposed to slavery. The very earliest, and one of the latest public efforts of his life, separated by a period of more than fifty years, were both made in favor of gradual emancipation of the slaves in Kentucky. He did not perceive, that on a question of human right, the negroes were to be excepted from the human race. And yet Mr. Clay was the owner of slaves. Cast into life where slavery was already widely spread and deeply seated, he did not perceive, as I think no wise man has perceived, how it could be at once eradicated, without producing a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty itself.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-27   2:48:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: rlk (#4)

We don't live in black Africa. We live in the USA. My thinking is very clear. Black Americans are AMERICANS. They are not African any more than white Americans are English. The Blacks have been here longer than any Italians, Russians, Poles, Scandinavians, and longer than most Irish or Germans.

Thanks to slavery, Blacks were here before the Puritans were. They are one of the original three of four "outside" groups to come to America.

That they did so involuntarily is no matter. The Blacks have been here longer than the Scotch Irish.

They are AMERICANS. Inherently part of the American fiber. Irish, Germans, Italians, Scandinavians - those people are latecomers compared to the American Blacks.

The notion of some sort of "white race" is absurd anyway, the product of desperate and unconvincing efforts by some Americans, faced with the nest that we fouled by dragging over millions of slaves, to justify the oppression and discomfort.

America created the problem of the black ghetto, and of impoverished blacks, That's the overhang of slavery and segregation and racism. It's not an African problem - West Indian islands are comfortable and prosperous, for the most part.

The problem in America is a problem of OUR history, not Africa's. And it's not a problem inherent to the Black race either.

If you just want to hate on your fellow Americans because they are black, and think yourself superior to them because you have white skin, nobody is going to stop you. But it's stupid, and it's wrong, and it's the very ROOT of the problem that makes it so very hard to fix things in the US.

American blacks are not illegal immigrants. They are among the oldest group here, original settlers. They are our fellow Americans, and the reason things are bad here black v. white, is because of what our white ancestors did to them, here, out of greed and evil. We don't have to continue to perpetrate the evil committed by our ancestors. We certainly cannot be in the business of justifying it.

But you're going to. You're going to because you're a racist. You believe that there is something inherent in skin color that accounts for the problems we have. Yours is an old and dying idea. You'll cling with it to the end of your life, probably, and God will have to teach you better on the other side.

But for the bulk of the country. figuring out how to FIX the mess our ancestors left us is the objective. Trump understands that the key to getting rid of poor black ghettos and hills full of hillbillies is JOBS.

And he's right.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-27   10:10:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Vicomte13 (#2)

"He certainly understood that the war was about black slavery."

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
-- Abraham Lincoln, 1862

misterwhite  posted on  2016-11-27   10:35:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: nolu chan (#6)

Lincoln is not the issue. The issue is what degree of evil should one accept in one's own house before one intervenes. Most would say that we should tolerate a great deal before we go intervening in other countries.

With slavery and segregation, we accepted far too much evil for far too long. We have black white social and economic problems to this day on account of that.

You are inclined to excuse it. I'm not.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-27   10:41:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: misterwhite (#8) (Edited)

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged.

The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." - Abraham Lincoln 1865

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-27   10:46:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: nolu chan (#6)

What, exactly, compared to slavery, was it that Lincoln considered a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty itself?

A Civil War, destruction of the Constitution, and dissolution of the Union.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-11-27   10:47:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Vicomte13 (#9)

With slavery and segregation, we accepted far too much evil for far too long.

Meaning, what? This is all a waste of time? It's too late?

Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution stated that no more slaves were to be imported after 1808. The Founders didn't accept evil. They moved as quickly as they could to discourage it.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-11-27   11:10:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: nolu chan (#5)

The African slave trade did not begin with Britain or America

You are correct. The origins of slavery first began when the Romans invaded and captured the Israelities. And yes, Israel did exist prior to 1948. If you read your bible you would know that Israel was named after the patriarch, Jacob. If your read the Exodus account of how the original Hebrews were scattered from their lands, you would have an idea of how far back slavery really occurred. And it occurred far back before 1300 A.D. The slave trade of the Africans who were actually the original Hebrews purged from their land of the Land of Judah, were captured by the Romans and sold to other countries who participated in the buying of these slaves. Those countries are Britian, Spain, Europe, and North America. Christopher Columbus, allegedly the one who "discovered America" whom many of us hold to be untrue, helped bring those slaves here. The true discoverer of North America was Amerigo Vespucci. North America is also responsible for the raping and stealing of the Indians land here in the Americas. This is why many people today do no honor nor observe Columbus Day nor Thanksgiving Day. It marks a day of human blood sacrifices.

goldilucky  posted on  2016-11-27   11:15:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: goldilucky (#3)

Since the days when the Roman soldiers conquered the original Israelites (who were black),

No they weren't. Maybe some of them but not all.

A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-27   11:54:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: goldilucky (#13)

The origins of slavery first began when the Romans invaded and captured the Israelities.

How could that be the origins of slavery. When Joshuas brothers put him in a pit and he ended up a slave centuries before the Romans.

Also the Israelis were enslaved by the Babylonians long before the Romans were around.

A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-27   11:56:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Vicomte13 (#7) (Edited)

Blacks were here before the Puritans were. American blacks are not illegal immigrants. They are among the oldest group here, original settlers.

So were horses. But I don't want them doing my thinking for me, moving in next door, or trying to hump my daughter.

rlk  posted on  2016-11-27   12:13:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: misterwhite (#12)

hey moved as quickly as they could to discourage it.

They did accept evil. Having proclaimed a right of rebellion based on unalienable rights, they killed the authorities and took over - end kept a fifth of the population enslaved under conditions far, far worse than anything that George III imposed on the colonists.

The Founders could have actually had the courage of their convictions and have freed their slaves. They chose not to, and saddled their new country with a burden that would kill their grandchildren in great numbers.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-27   12:21:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: rlk (#16)

So were horses. But I don't want them doing my thinking for me, moving in next door, or trying to hump my daughter.

You think blacks are inferior animals. Got it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-27   12:22:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Vicomte13 (#17)

"The Founders could have actually had the courage of their convictions and have freed their slaves."

Nowadays people wear ribbons to support their cause. Both have the same effect on their causes -- nothing.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-11-27   12:39:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Vicomte13 (#18)

So were horses. But I don't want them doing my thinking for me, moving in next door, or trying to hump my daughter.

You think blacks are inferior animals. Got it.

My evaluation of people is determined by inspection of what they did with the land from which they came from over thousands of years and their present behavioral patterns rather than contorted speculation. When I look into somebody's eyes and see nobody's home, that tells me something.

rlk  posted on  2016-11-27   12:50:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Vicomte13 (#1)

The Anglo-Saxons, having deported a people from Africa to exploit them economically, now found itself desirous of being free of them. How quaint.

Indeed.

They also miscalculated the Irish immigrant birth rate as well. In less than a generation the Irish took over most big city government positions which changed the political landscape for generations to come.

redleghunter  posted on  2016-11-27   12:57:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Vicomte13 (#7) (Edited)

We don't live in black Africa. We live in the USA. My thinking is very clear. Black Americans are AMERICANS. They are not African any more than white Americans are English.

I agree. I also think damn near all of the black racists that are always ranting and raving about how unfair life in America is to them would be crying like little girls if they had to go to "the motherland" to live. As a general rule,Africans have nothing but contempt for the descendants of slaves. Remember,it was THEIR ancestors that sold the ancestors of todays slaves to the slave traders.

The Blacks have been here longer than any Italians, Russians, Poles, Scandinavians, and longer than most Irish or Germans.

NOT true. We know there were Scandinavians on the east coast of the US centuries before the English settlement on Roanoke Island,or the Spanish/Portuguese settlements in Florida.

Given the close proximity I would be shocked if there weren't people we call "Russians" today living here long before the Vikings,the Spanish,or the Portuguese showed up. In FACT,I would be surprised if some of "our" western "Indian Tribes" weren't the offspring of ORIGINAL Russian (for lack of a more descriptive term) peoples. Go to the Mari Republic in Russia and visit their museum,and when you look at the artifacts and the photos of the original peoples of the Mari Republic you would swear you are looking at American Indians. And the Mari lived FAR south of Siberia. Caucasian Russians are a fairly recent event in the history of that land.

American blacks are not illegal immigrants. They are among the oldest group here, original settlers. They are our fellow Americans, and the reason things are bad here black v. white, is because of what our white ancestors did to them, here, out of greed and evil. We don't have to continue to perpetrate the evil committed by our ancestors. We certainly cannot be in the business of justifying it.

I am calling BullBush on that one. The very first blacks that came to America came here as indentured servants,just like all the non-rich whites. They worked as laborers to pay off their passage and living expenses,and were then freed to own land and bring in their own indentured servants.

In FACT,the very FIRST slave owner in the English-Speaking New World was a BLACK former indentured servant who adopted the name of Johnson,and he became the first slave owner in the first English settlement (Jamestown) by going to court to enslave the black indentured servant he brought here.

Johnson later died as a rich horse breeding on his own horse farm in Maryland.

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2016-11-27   12:58:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Vicomte13 (#9)

Lincoln is not the issue. The issue is what degree of evil should one accept in one's own house before one intervenes. Most would say that we should tolerate a great deal before we go intervening in other countries.

You are suffering/celebrating the whole Catholic "guilt thing". Americans did NOT create slavery,so there is no reason for Americans to still feel guilty about something we didn't create and something we ended over a century ago. There is not ONE SINGLE slave or slave-owner still alive in America.

In FACT Popes and other Catholic Church officials owned slaves before America even existed.

THEY did not create slavery,either,and like America,they abolished slavery in areas that came under their domain,just like America. Thus,THEY are not guilty either,having done everything they could have done to correct that wrong. Just like we did here in America.

COLLECTIVE GUILT is pure HorseHillary,and nothing more than a tool to manipulate people by shaming them.

The slavery that WE ARE AWARE OF was started by Africans,and is still being practiced in some areas of Africa.

I say "WE ARE AWARE OF" because our knowledge of the world and it's history is limited. Today it is commonly accepted as truth that "The First Man" was born in Africa,which is pure bullshit. The only factual aspect related to that claim is the oldest human remains found to date were found in Africa. The FACT is that the majority of the planet is covered with water,and it's not even the same areas that were always underwater. There have been shark and whale bones found in the Rocky Mountains,so it stands to reason that there are also other regions that used to be high and dry are now under water so deep it's impossible to search them with our current technology.

Who knows what may be found in the future,though?

BTW,you went to a Jesuit school,didn't you?

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2016-11-27   13:14:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: goldilucky, nolu chan (#13)

The origins of slavery first began when the Romans invaded and captured the Israelities.

WRONG! That was just the first written record we have of slavery.

I am not away of ANY "Indian tribe" in the US that did NOT capture and hold or sell slaves,and I'd be willing to bet none of those slaves came from Israel,Rome,or Africa.

Going back ever further,I'd be willing to bet that Neanderthals and other "cave men" also owned and traded/sold slaves. Maybe not male slaves,but tribes have been invading each others territory since the dawn of time to make raids to bring back adult females and children to strengthen their own tribes and make their gene pool a little deeper.

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2016-11-27   13:20:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: sneakypete (#24)

That is because you never bothered to pick up a bible and start reading. You don't have to be associated with an Indian tribe or black. You just have to have an understanding in depth of the history of mankind and how we got to where we are today. Sadly to know that most people have no care to question the truth let alone search for those answers.

goldilucky  posted on  2016-11-27   13:37:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: sneakypete (#23)

The early colonists and pilgrims did participate in the receiving end of the slaves from the continent of Europe and Ethiopia.

And no, it is not pure bs that the first man originated from Africa. All you have to do is read the beginning part of the bible (Genesis) to know the truth. And by the way, Adam and Eve were not white either. They were black.

goldilucky  posted on  2016-11-27   13:46:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: A K A Stone (#15)

And who were the original Hebrew Israelis? They were the Ethiopians. Babylon included the Roman era that conquered Israel and even Ethiopia.

goldilucky  posted on  2016-11-27   13:49:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: A K A Stone (#14) (Edited)

Yes, they were black.

https://yeyeolade.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/it-was-black-hebews-who-lived-in-the-original-israel-of-the-bible-by-stewartsynopsiscom-2/

and here as well

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Amos-9-7/

goldilucky  posted on  2016-11-27   13:55:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: goldilucky (#26)

And no, it is not pure bs that the first man originated from Africa. All you have to do is read the beginning part of the bible (Genesis) to know the truth. And by the way, Adam and Eve were not white either.

The bible is nothing but mythology exaggerated and beautified over thousands of years by people who were hysterical enough and needy enough to believe in it.

rlk  posted on  2016-11-27   14:23:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: goldilucky (#27)

And who were the original Hebrew Israelis?

They were tribal migrants from what is now Iraq or therabouts.

rlk  posted on  2016-11-27   14:36:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: sneakypete, yall (#24)

goldilucky, nolu chan claim:---

The origins of slavery first began when the Romans invaded and captured the Israelities.

Sneakypete :--

WRONG! That was just the first written record we have of slavery. --- I am not aware of ANY "Indian tribe" in the US that did NOT capture and hold or sell slaves,and I'd be willing to bet none of those slaves came from Israel,Rome,or Africa.----- Going back ever further,I'd be willing to bet that Neanderthals and other "cave men" also owned and traded/sold slaves. Maybe not male slaves,but tribes have been invading each others territory since the dawn of time to make raids to bring back adult females and children to strengthen their own tribes and make their gene pool a little deeper.

Pete, you're the only person posting on this issue that makes sense.

Everyone else seems to have an agenda, much like the one here quoted from the article.

"Power is ever stealing from the many to the few," and ambitious and designing men are ever on the alert to take advantage of actual or accidental differences in race, nationality, or religion, to divide the masses of a republic into permanent factions or bands;

tpaine  posted on  2016-11-27   14:46:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: goldilucky (#25)

That is because you never bothered to pick up a bible and start reading.

I have read all sorts of fiction,including the Bible.

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2016-11-27   17:25:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: goldilucky (#26)

All you have to do is read the beginning part of the bible (Genesis) to know the truth.

ROFLMAO!

You are completely delusional.

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2016-11-27   17:26:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: sneakypete (#33)

And right back at you, sneaky.

goldilucky  posted on  2016-11-27   17:44:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: goldilucky (#26)

You're stupid.

A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-27   18:23:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: sneakypete (#24)

Neanderthals

lol

A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-27   18:24:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: A K A Stone (#36)

Neanderthals

lol

Just out of curiously,why are you laughing?

Is it that you don't think Neanderthals existed?

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2016-11-27   18:51:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: sneakypete (#37)

Homo neanderthalensis was the scientific name given to an unusual ancient fossil (later to be called Neanderthal Man) found in the Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany, in 1856. It was later realized that fossils of H. neanderthalensis had been discovered earlier in Engis, Belgium, in 1830, and in Forbes’ Quarry, Gibraltar, in 1848. (For an extensive history of Neanderthal finds, see, for example, Trinkaus and Shipman 1993).

At that early time, these fossils were considered to be ancient, primitive humans by some (who called them “ape-man”), or diseased modern humans by others, but nonetheless human (Regal 2004, pp. 38–43). Reconstructions of what Neanderthals might have looked like when alive gave them a very satisfactory ape-like appearance (for example, fig. 1). In 1908, Neanderthal as a primitive, brutish, caveman was literally invented by Marcellin Boule of France (Regal 2004, pp. 51–52). That image of the Neanderthals was to persist for the next 50 years (Drell 2000; Schrenk and Muller 2008).

It has been generally conceded by evolutionists, however reluctantly, that they would have to accept that Neanderthals were as human as we were (Lewin 1999, pp. 156–163). But evolutionists haven’t given up entirely without a struggle, and they remain ambivalent about the Neanderthals. Hints of the evolutionist difficulty with considering Neanderthals entirely human keep surfacing, as in questions of whether they could really talk like us, for instance (Hoffecker 2005; Krause et al. 2007a; Swaminathan 2007). Speth (2004) found it necessary to chide his fellow scientists for convicting the Neanderthals of gross mental incompetence without adequate proof (“By most recent accounts, Neanderthals would have had considerable difficulty chewing gum and walking at the same time.”).

Neanderthal Man Fig. 1. First reconstruction of a Neanderthal man, by Schaaffhausen, 1888 (Neanderthal 2009). Young-earth creationists, meanwhile, were not at all reluctant to recognize Neanderthals as human (Oard 2003a; Phillips 2000; Robertson and Sarfati 2003); after all, they had known from the beginning that there was no such thing as an ape-man. Lubenow pointed out that at several sites Neanderthals and modern humans were buried together, which he considered to be strong evidence that Neanderthals were of our species, because “In all of life, few desires are stronger than the desire to be buried with one’s own people” (Lubenow 2004, p. 254).

But there remained the serious job of examining this Neanderthal man. Who was he? On this question, creationists have been somewhat less than unified in their answers.

The Root of the Disagreement: Cuozzo versus Lubenow Currently, the most widely accepted creationist view of the Neanderthals is that they were very early nomadic humans, probably one of the tribes that departed from Babel in the dispersion (for example, Oard 2003b, Robertson and Sarfati 2003). Their unique skull characteristics were possibly the result of family genetic traits and/or poor diet and lack of sunshine during the Ice Age, or perhaps disease. This is essentially the view of the Neanderthals that is described by Marvin Lubenow in his influential book, Bones of Contention (Lubenow 2004), as well as in various articles (for example, Lubenow 1998, 2000, 2006, 2007). Lubenow, theologian and anthropologist, had been studying fossils for many years and his conclusions seemed solid enough; creationist writers have been quite willing to subscribe to his ideas (for example, Oard 2009; Parker 2006; Purdom 2007).

But creationists were not totally unanimous in following the party line on Neanderthals. Maverick Jack Cuozzo, an orthodontist, had been studying Neanderthal skulls, and had authored some papers (for example, Cuozzo 1987, 1991, 1994). He then published his scientific research in a book on Neanderthals, Buried Alive! (Cuozzo 1998a); and presented a paper on computer projections of human skull changes with age at the International Conference on Creationism that same year (Cuozzo 1998b).

Cuozzo’s work represented a new research concept with regard to the scientific methods used in the study of ancient fossils. Whereas everybody else merely examined the Neanderthal skulls as they were at a point in time, Cuozzo looked at the skulls (using X-rays) as changing continuously from the moment of birth right on through to death. He had come to some radical conclusions: Neanderthals were ancient people who had developed their unique morphological characteristics (appearance) because they lived to an age of several hundred years, and, in addition, they had matured to adulthood very slowly. The significance of Cuozzo’s work did not appear to sink in among creationists, who have largely ignored his ideas.1 Creationists who have taken heed include Beasley (1992), Murdock (2004), and Robbins (2009).

Although most creationists currently accept the Lubenow view of Neanderthals, they admit that there are questions that remain. Where did the Neanderthals come from and where did they go? Why did they look as they did? Why did Neanderthals and modern humans appear to live side by side for long periods (or did they)? Why were Neanderthals buried with modern humans? Why did the robust Neanderthals disappear so suddenly? Do we carry any of their DNA or did their line go extinct? Why did young Neanderthals not have browridges? Where did the Neanderthals fit into biblical history? Were Neanderthals one of the groups dispersed from Babel? And where did Homo erectus fit into the picture?

Indeed, accepting H. erectus as human, as the majority of creationists do now, was a concept that raised its own set of questions. Where did H. erectus fit into biblical history? Where did H. erectus come from and where did he go? Do we carry H. erectus genes? Was there really a wide diversity of human genes immediately post Flood? If so, how did this diversity happen so soon after the human genetic bottleneck of the Ark? Should there not have been less diversity immediately after the Flood, with diversity increasing as time went on? How did H. erectus relate to the Neanderthals? Why are there no H. erectus burials (Homo erectus 2009b)?

Creationists as a whole did not seem to have answers for all these questions.

Homo erectus: Human or Not? As we shall see later on, the status of H. erectus (whether human or not) has a direct bearing on some aspects of the Neanderthals. Therefore, at this point we will leave the Neanderthals temporarily to take a detour through the rather swampy territory of H. erectus.

It has been argued that H. erectus, as a class of fossils, was artificially manufactured by evolutionists to serve their purposes, and that H. erectus doesn’t really exist; therefore, as creationists, we should simply classify ancient fossils as either human or ape, and that should settle that (Bowden 1988). On the other hand, for a class of fossils that doesn’t exist, H. erectus has been getting mentioned quite regularly by creationists in their literature (for example, Gish 1985, pp. 180–203; Lubenow 2004; Mehlert 1994; Taylor 2008; Wieland 2002; Woodmorappe 2000.

Homo erectus began its rather checkered career as Pithecanthropus erectus (meaning “upright ape man”) with discovery of the first specimens in 1891 and 1892 in Java, Indonesia, by Eugene Dubois. In 1951, after a circuitous route of giving other names to various similar successive finds, this class of fossils was renamed Homo erectus (Lewin 1999, pp. 138–144).

Early creationists were generous about admitting H. erectus to the human dinner table. Rusch (1964), for instance, believed that not only H. erectus but even earlier forms of fossils in the claimed evolutionary chain were human. Tinkle (1968) believed that all apes had canine teeth (a shaky assumption), and that any fossil that did not have canine teeth had to be human; he therefore included as human some rather doubtful candidates. Shaw (1970) considered all homo-type fossils human, except possibly the Australopithecines, of which he was uncertain.

Then came a change in creationist thinking. According to Mehlert (1994),

The Javan and Peking forms of H. erectus in particular came under considerable attack by creationists in the 1970s and 1980s. The thrust of these critiques was that all H. erectus forms were extremely ape-like and even possibly fraudulent. (See also Bowden 1981, pp. 78–148; Gish 1985; Johnson 1982, pp. 40–45.)

But the pendulum was to swing again. This was partly caused by discovery of the skeleton called Turkana Boy (KHM-WT-15000) in Africa in 1984 (Lewin 1999, p. 120), causing creationists to declare that now they would simply have to believe that H. erectus was human (Mehlert 1994). In his revised book, Lubenow (2004) pushed very hard on this theme, devoting almost 80 pages to defending H. erectus as fully human, including the controversial Javan and Peking fossils. Other creationists have willingly followed suit (for example, Line 2005; Wieland 2002; Wise 2005; Wood 2008; Woodmorappe 2000).

Even the tiny, meter-high Homo floresiensis, nicknamed the “hobbit,” discovered in Flores, Indonesia, in 2003 (Brown et al. 2004), was hailed as human by creationists (Wieland 2008), although evolutionists were wary (Argue et al. 2009; Baab and McNulty 2008; Larson et al. 2007). Just over three feet high, with a head the size of a grapefruit, this so-called human presented some puzzles, especially how it got so small. This prompted theories about such factors as disease, insular dwarfing, elevated climate temperature and CO2, and iodine deficiency (Tyler 2005).

The subject of human cranial capacity now needed to be addressed. Although creationists accepted that the average capacity of the H. erectus skulls was considerably smaller than that of modern humans (Homo erectus 2009a), this really small Flores skull did rather push the limits. Happily, Jue (1990) had earlier reassured creationists that “what is now known of modern man, there is no relationship between cranial capacity and intelligence.” In other words, merely because a fossil had a very small brain, this did not preclude it from being human. Everyone could relax.2

While most creationists were busily turning all H. erectus into members of the human race, there was another voice trying to make itself heard. Jack Cuozzo did not believe that H. erectus was human. Homo erectus, he said, was an ape—an ancient, advanced, ape, now extinct. “Apes probably were more complex at an early time in earth history, had more abilities, and might have been able to walk close to upright . . .” (Cuozzo 1998, p. 101). This tied in with Cuozzo’s strong belief, reiterated throughout his book, that all creation had originally been greatly superior to what it is now; and because of degeneration that set in after the fall in the Garden of Eden, all creatures had deteriorated over the millennia since then, or had gone extinct. In addition, he wrote, “. . . a detailed study of H. erectus shows very clearly it was not human, starting with the fact that there is no record of them ever burying their dead.”3 He went on,

I have an accurate cast from Africa of Nariokotome4 Boy’s skull and have done a diagnostic orthodontic set-up of its occlusion (upper and lower teeth in occlusion) and it is very ape-like . . . and have heard its discoverer Alan Walker5 . . . enumerate the nonhuman features. Also, with respect to the so-called hobbit, “My impression of it (the H. floresiensis fossil) is a complex small ape.” (Cuozzo 2009, private communications). It was clear that Cuozzo was not going to go along with the rest of the creationists on the matter of the various fossils that made up the class of H. erectus. Meanwhile, the changing creationist opinions on the status of H. erectus fossils have not gone unnoticed in the evolutionist camp. Foley (2008) illustrates the problem in a table of six H. erectus skulls and the varying creationist opinions on them.6 As Foley says, “although creationists are adamant that none of these are transitional and all are either apes or humans,7 they are not able to agree on which are which” (italics are Foley’s). To punch his point, he notes creationists who have flip-flopped, and also three examples of erectus fossils on which creationists can’t make up their minds. On the whole, this entire matter of the status of H. erectus has been rather embarrassing to creationists; if we are honest, we must acknowledge that there has been a problem in proving that we can tell the difference between fossil humans and nonhumans.

Neanderthal Skeleton Fig. 2. Neanderthal skeleton on display at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. Photo by Claire Houck (Neanderthal 2009). Why Are Creationists (and Evolutionists) Having Difficulty Distinguishing Between Early Apes and Humans? It might seem that it would be obvious whether or not a skull or skeleton is that of a human like us. After all, live humans today are quite easily distinguished from all forms of apes. But without flesh and hair, the skeletal remains are more difficult to identify, as is clear from the foregoing discussion. For a comparison of these two taxons (groups), see Figs. 2, 3, and 4 (H. neanderthalensis) and Figs. 5 and 6 (H. erectus). The apparent similarities between H. neanderthalensis and H. erectus are striking.

One feature that is a source of confusion for both the evolutionists and creationists is bipedality (ability to walk on two feet). Indeed, Murdock (2006) blames evolutionists like Richard Leakey for using bipedality to confuse the issue of what constitutes a human. While most of Leakey’s evolutionist colleagues were using “hominid” to refer to all ancestral human species, Leakey unabashedly stretched the definition of “human” to all “apes that walked upright—bipedal apes.” And not only H. erectus were bipedal, he said, but also earlier species in the evolutionary line that led to H. sapiens (Leakey 1996, pp. xiii, xiv). On the creationist side, some have believed that only humans could have walked upright on two feet (for example, Wieland 1994), and therefore any being (such as H. erectus) that walked this way must have been human. However, there is strong support for bipedal, upright apes in ancient times, not only from Cuozzo (1998, p. 101), as noted earlier, but also from creationist paleoanthropologist Murdock (2006, p. 108) who does not mince words: “There has been unwillingness by some to accept the possibility that some apes walked upright in the past.” Murdock goes on to say,

Neanderthal Skull Fig. 3. La Chapelle aux Saints (Neanderthal) skull, discovered in France in 1908 (Neanderthal 2009). These apes walked upright, not because we share a common ancestor, but because we share a common designer. They must also be viewed as more complex versions of extant apes (having not suffered as many years of the curse) (Murdock 2006, p. 108). Clearly, bipedality did not necessarily make H. erectus human (using the creationist definition of “human”).

Another noticeable source of confusion about the status of H. erectus is the prominent browridges of both H. erectus and Neanderthal; these browridges do admittedly make the skulls look similar, as shown in figs 4 and 6. However, we need to be cautious about this, because there are many fossils that are definitely not human that also have browridges; browridges alone do not determine humanness. This is well illustrated by an online photo8 of seven skulls in a row: only one (H. sapiens) has no browridges. All the others do, including a Neanderthal, a member of H. erectus, two Australopithecus, a gorilla, and a chimpanzee. One ape missing from this lineup is the orangutan (Pongo); like humans, these lack prominent browridges (Brow ridge n.d.).

Neanderthal Skull Fig. 4. La Ferrassie (Neanderthal) skull, discovered in France 1909 (Neanderthal 2009). Custance (1968) began a long paper on human fossils by castigating evolutionist Howell (1967, p. 85) for writing that “Man is a primate and within the order of Primates is most closely related to the living African anthropoid apes.” “It is not at all safe to assume that all ‘look-alikes’ are related,” said Custance, calling Howell “purely presumptive” in stating this as a fact without proof. Forty years later, the two sides of this question remain about the same.

Those who consider H. erectus to be a Neanderthal look-alike would do well to look to the science of tooth development studies. Evolutionists Dean et al. (2001) have found that H. erectus and various other homo species had quite a different kind of tooth development than modern humans and Neanderthals; they consider this significant, stating that “Brain size, age at first reproduction, lifespan and other life-history traits correlate tightly with dental development.” This supports Cuozzo’s view that H. erectus and Neanderthal fall into different categories.

Turkana Boy Skeleton Fig. 5. Turkana Boy (H. erectus) skeleton on display at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. Photo by Claire Houck (Turkana Boy 2009). Implications of Status of Homo erectus for Neanderthals Creationists are offered a choice between two opposing views on H. erectus, whether human or not. They might well ask whether it really matters one way or the other.

What we need to understand is that the status of H. erectus has some important implications for Neanderthals. This starts with the number of different groups of very early people that we know about. If we believe that H. erectus was human, we have two possible candidates for peoples that could have left Babel in the dispersion of Genesis 11, Neanderthals and H. erectus. But Genesis 10 would seem to indicate that there were more groups than this. If so, who were they?

Consideration of this question logically leads to the conclusions of Wise, who says that since there must have been more peoples than this leaving Babel, there must be whole groups of early people who have disappeared, whether in natural catastrophe, warfare, or whatever (Wise 2005). Indeed, Wise goes as far as saying that H. erectus may have been the only humans at Babel; in his proposed scenario, Neanderthals would have possibly developed later. This raises the question whether this accords with what the Bible says in Genesis 10, where it lists a lot of different peoples, but nothing about disasters or eradicating any of them.

Also, as Wood points out, if H. erectus were human, this would also indicate that there was a wider range of physical appearance, and therefore genetic diversity, immediately after the Flood than we have today (Wood 2008). But in the view of others, there should have been less human diversity immediately after the two genetic bottlenecks of the Flood and the Babel dispersion, with diversity increasing as time went on (Ashcraft 2004; Nelson 2004).

Those problems are all solved if, like Cuozzo (1998, p. 101), we put H. erectus into the category of apes. This suggests that all the people who left Babel were Neanderthals who spread out in many directions to form the nations of Genesis 10; moreover, all peoples now living on earth are descended from Neanderthals. This theme will be developed in the next section on Neanderthal lifespan.

Homo Erectus Skull Fig. 6. Homo erectus skull on display at the Museum of Natural History, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Photo by Thomas Roche (Homo erectus 2009b). If all the people who dispersed from Babel were Neanderthals, the various groups would have developed genetic changes as time went on, eventually to produce all the peoples that we see today. Recently, secular scientists have started to suggest exactly this, that the Neanderthals were not a homogeneous population, but that they diverged genetically in various geographical areas of the world where they lived (Fabre, Condemi, and Degioanni 2009). This would be a logical outcome of a worldwide Neanderthal dispersion. However, the reliability of this kind of testing of ancient DNA is questioned by some, a matter that will be discussed later in this paper.

Implications of Long Neanderthal Lifespan As noted earlier, Cuozzo showed by his X-ray studies of Neanderthal skulls that these were people who must have lived for hundreds of years (Cuozzo 1998a). Not only that, his computerized modeling of skull changes with age predicted development of exactly the kind of characteristics that these Neanderthal skulls displayed (Cuozzo 1998b). This meant that there had to have been some very, very old people somewhere in our history.

Of course, we don’t have to look very hard to find extraordinarily long- lived people, because they are in plain view in the early historical Genesis accounts. Between Creation and the Flood, there were people like Adam who lived 930 years and Methuselah who lived 969 years, to pick two examples out of the genealogy of Genesis 5. Noah lived 950 years in all, 600 before the Flood and 350 after it ({% scripture "Genesis 7:11, 9:28, 29" %}). Lifespans were still quite long for some time after the Flood; generations of people after Noah lived for hundreds of years (Genesis 11:10–22). If we accept the Bible literally, we have to believe that these people actually lived that long.

From this we can deduce that, according to Cuozzo’s studies, all the ancient long-lived people of early Genesis who lived for hundreds of years could be classified as Neanderthals, including everyone from Adam through to the Flood and for some generations after the Flood. Exactly when people no longer lived long enough to develop Neanderthal characteristics, and what generation after the Flood would have been the last of what we would call Neanderthals, Cuozzo does not specify at this stage of his work. (For a discussion of what factors are involved in estimating the probable ages of Neanderthal skulls, see Cuozzo 1998, pp. 201–216).

By contrast, the current creationist view of Neanderthals as simply an ancient tribe of nomadic people, now extinct, does not offer any answers as to who the Neanderthals really were. Lubenow, in discussing Neanderthal burial practices, says,

. . . I do not wish to imply that Abraham or his ancestors . . . were Neandertals. What the relationship was—if any—between the people of Genesis and the Neandertals we do not know (Lubenow 2007). Cuozzo would beg to disagree with that.

What Caused the Neanderthals’ Unique Morphological Characteristics? While everyone generally recognized that the Neanderthals were human, it was clear that they weren’t exactly like us in appearance. As Oard says (1996, p. 58), “Neanderthal Man did have a peculiar look about him.” How Neanderthals came to have their unique physical characteristics has been a subject of much debate by evolutionists and creationists alike, with no consensus reached on either side.

Early on, Custance (1968), a creationist anthropologist, had suggested that “extreme old age would often tend to modify the skull towards the conventional man-ape form.” But on this he was ahead of his time.

Since the Neanderthals had lived during the Ice Age, scientists on both sides have assumed that climate could have been a contributing factor in their facial and other characteristics (Mellars 1996, p. 3; Oard 1996, p. 59). But rats raised in the cold in controlled laboratory experiments showed some craniofacial changes opposite to those that Neanderthals had; apparently it would be necessary to reconsider the climate theory (Rae et al. 2006). There were, in any case, other possibilities that presented themselves. An article by a geographer (Dobson 1998) had caused rather a storm of controversy when he suggested that Neanderthals were deformed because of iodine deficiencies in their diet; in spite of attempts to refute this idea by the well-known Trinkaus (Gugliotta 1999), Dobson did not back down. Another group applied statistical tests to show that it was genetic drift that explained cranial differences between Neanderthals and modern humans (Weaver, Roseman, and Stringer 2007).

Disease was considered a likely candidate by many. Bowden (1981) had earlier taken the view that European Neanderthals were degenerate humans who suffered from rickets and syphilis; his belief was influenced by the opinions of a 19th-century pathologist, Virchow, and Ivanhoe (1970). The influential Virchow, who died in 1902,

believed that Neanderthal man was a modern Homo sapiens, whose deformations were caused by rickets in childhood and arthritis later in life, with the flattened skull due to powerful blows to the head (Schultz 2008). Ivanhoe (1970) thought that Neanderthals may have suffered from a vitamin D deficiency and that Virchow was right after all. Jaroncyk (2007) thought a whole group of factors could be involved:

Some of their characteristic skeletal features could therefore be attributed to their harsh life in a cold post-Flood climate, as well as to arthritis, rickets and genetic isolation. Oard (2006a, p. 129) favored rickets and arthritis because of a lack of vitamin D from cloudy Ice-Age weather, plus genetic inbreeding. Creationist Acton (1978) believed that rickets, Paget’s disease, and syphilis were the most likely candidates for causing the Neanderthal characteristics. Conrad (1986), an evolutionist, took Acton up on this, essentially saying that even though Acton had many medical titles, and knew a great deal about his own specialty, he clearly did not know enough about Neanderthals. Lubenow (2004, p. 84) has been satisfied to accept that disease, especially rickets and syphilis, could be contributors to the Neanderthal morphology, along with other factors.

On the subject of Neanderthals and disease, Lubenow and Cuozzo are definitely not in agreement. Cuozzo refutes the idea of diseases in some detail (Cuozzo 1998, pp. 275–279), concluding,

I sincerely hope that these outlined diagnostic signs for rheumatoid arthritis, rickets, and congenital syphilis will finally put to rest the speculation of all those who have tried to explain away the Neanderthal features using these diseases. Although many of the authors above believed that the Neanderthals’ distinctive browridges could be largely accounted for by disease, various scientists thought that the browridges were actually produced by forces of chewing that affected Neanderthal facial structure (for example, Spencer and Demes 1993). But others concluded that what they called “masticatory biomechanical adaptation” (chewing-caused changes) did not underlie the Neanderthal facial morphology (structure), and that alternative explanations should be pursued (O’Connor, Franciscus, and Holton 2004), whatever those alternatives were. Lubenow (2004, p. 83) cites Klein (1989, pp. 281–282), whose “plausible nonevolutionary explanation for most of the unique features of Neandertal morphology” was that they gripped things with their teeth, using the latter as a tool.

Cuozzo, however, concluded that the Neanderthal browridges had to have formed merely from old age and normal chewing. He arrived at this from his studies of Eskimo skulls from Koniak Island at the Smithsonian in the 1980s; those jaws showed lumps of bone inside, formed because of the Eskimos’ tough premodern diet. But the Neanderthals did not have these lumps of bone, nor the thick gonial (jaw) angle of those Eskimos, and therefore did not seem to have had an unusually tough diet (Cuozzo 1998, pp. 182–184, 229–230).

If browridges were the result of old age, it naturally follows that Neanderthal children did not have them. This is indeed the case, as is shown in Fig. 7. In early times, however, it was mistakenly believed that Neanderthal children did have facial features just like those of adults. On this Cuozzo (1998, p. 272) says, “Many human paleontologists thought it was natural for Neanderthal children to have miniature adult faces.” He cites Howell (1957).

Neanderthal Child Fig. 7. Reconstruction of a Neanderthal child. Anthropological Institute, University of Zurich (Neanderthal 2009). Although creationists might think that the subject of facial bone changes with age is new, the medical scientific community at large has been quite aware of this for a long time; surveys of the literature on the subject go back as far as the 1860s (Albert, Ricanek, and Patterson 2007; Behrents 1985; Guagliardo 1982). Israel (1977), for instance, pointed out that as people age, different parts of the craniofacial skeleton will grow at different rates. It may be surprising how wide the subject is of interest. A paper on craniofacial changes with age aimed at plastic surgeons suggested that surgeons may want to alter underlying bone structure as well as skin on aging patients (Bartlett, Grossman, and Whitaker 1992). At an FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) conference, Milner, Neave, and Wilkinson (2001) made the point that “bone remains a highly dynamic tissue with active remodeling occurring through old age.” Albert, Ricanek, and Patterson (2007) note that their research was funded by the United States Department of Defense which was interested in “studies of automated face recognition, computer 3D modeling of faces, and computer adult age progression techniques.”

Unlike creationists in general, who have been slow to pick up on Cuozzo’s work, those in dental fields of expertise have understood it quite well; for example, Robbins (2009), a retired dentist, has published an article in Bible and Spade in which he explains the principles behind Cuozzo’s calculations of lifespans of long-lived people.

Why Did the Neanderthals Disappear? The biggest puzzle, that neither the majority of creationists nor the evolutionists have been able to solve, is why the Neanderthals disappeared. The robust Neanderthals appeared to have everything going for them, all agree, and there is no visible reason why they should not have survived (Trinkaus 1978). Nonetheless, disappear they did, rather suddenly, before the end of the post-Flood Ice Age or, as evolutionists call it, the end of the last ice age9 (Van Andel and Davies 2004).

Everyone agrees that modern humans showed up on the world scene at approximately the same time that the Neanderthals disappeared; whether or not this timing was a coincidence is debated. Some evolutionists allow thousands of years for the two groups to overlap—how many thousand is a matter of intense discussion—because they have a lot of time at their disposal, and a few thousand years here or there are a mere trifle (see, for example, Lewin 1999, pp. 157, 165–166). Creationists obviously have far less historical time available to account for the Neanderthal disappearance and subsequent appearance of modern man; therefore they have to explain how this mysterious event could have happened so quickly. But the problem for both sides is the same: why did it happen?

The proposed explanations forwarded by evolutionists on the Neanderthal demise have been both varied and creative, and only a sampling of the rather large literature on this subject can be touched on here. The Neanderthals’ supposed inability to cope with climate change has been especially popular (Jimenez-Espejo et al. 2007); although the Neanderthals had been able to live through the Ice Age successfully, they apparently could not cope with the ending of this cold period. Also much discussed are losing out to modern humans in various kinds of competition (Banks et al. 2008; Hoffecker 2002; Shea 2001), intermarrying with moderns (Zilhão 2006), or possibly both (Miller 2001). But there are others. Carnieri (2006) suggests that anatomically modern humans in Europe ate a lot of seafood; this more healthful diet helped them outlive the largely carnivorous Neanderthals. Sorensen (n.d.) suggests that Homo sapiens, migrating out of Africa, brought infectious disease that killed off the Neanderthals. Kuhn and Stiner (2006) argue that because Neanderthals did not divide their labor between the sexes the way modern humans did, this gave the latter a survival advantage. A mathematician, using what he calls a “simple mathematical homogeneous model of competition,” has determined that extinction of the Neanderthals was unavoidable (Flores 1998). Economists have gotten into the act with a theory that the Neanderthals came out second best because modern humans were better at trade (Horan, Bulte, and Shogren 2005). A rather grisly version surfaced in reports that, finally, there was good evidence that the Neanderthals actually did practice cannibalism, as had been suspected (Sanders 1999); presumably we were to believe that, like the gingham dog and the calico cat (Field 1894), the Neanderthals simply ate each other up. Then a different angle on the alleged cannibalism was proposed: eating each other, especially the brains, might have caused spreading of a mad-cow-related disease that could have played a large part in wiping the Neanderthals out (Underdown 2008). More recently, news articles (for example, McKie 2009) trumpeted to the world that it was actually cannibalistic modern humans who ate the Neanderthals up; this was based on an interview with scientist Fernando Rozzi, head of a research team that had just published a paper (Rozzi et al. 2009) that cast doubt on what their leader was telling the press(!). According to a group of geneticists, the small population size of Neanderthals may have made them more vulnerable to extinction, whatever the causes (Briggs et al. 2009).

This is not an exhaustive list of the many possibilities that have been proposed. As one insightful science newswriter says, “Figuring out why Neanderthals died out and what they were like when alive have kept plenty of scientists busy” (ANI 2009). Mark Twain would have been quite impressed by how little hard evidence supports some of these papers. He wrote, “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact” (Twain 1883). One might think he was talking about evolutionists’ papers on the disappearance of the Neanderthals.

Meanwhile, creationists’ explanations of the Neanderthal demise have seemed rather tame and tentative by comparison, nor has there been a noticeable rush to embrace many of the various theories offered by evolutionists. Even Lubenow, who is very definite about many other ideas in his book, glosses lightly over the matter of why creationists think the Neanderthals disappeared from view; indeed, he speculates that Neanderthals could have survived into fairly recent times (Lubenow 2004, p. 82). The creationist stance is exemplified by a recent online piece about an apparent Neanderthal stabbing (Human stabbed a Neanderthal, evidence suggests, 2009), that ended with the words,

The more interesting debate is whether Neanderthals went entirely extinct . . . or whether their genes survive in many modern Europeans, as some studies have suggested. On the one side, Oard (2006a, p. 129) states that the Neanderthals “very likely” intermarried with Cro-Magnon man, who seemed to follow the Neanderthals into Europe some time later; and Sarfati (2004, p. 317) concludes that “. . . modern humans and Neandertals likely amalgamated in Europe.” But, on the other side, Wise (2008) claims that DNA evidence shows that we do not carry Neanderthal genes today; therefore Neanderthals went extinct without intermarrying with modern humans. He speculates that this extinction event could have occurred because of challenges of survival in the post-Flood earth, or from various kinds of human violence.

The creationist debate as to whether or not the Neanderthals mixed their genes with those of modern humans through marriage is mirrored by evolutionists (who prefer to talk about “interbreeding” or “admixing” or “cohabiting”). Their positions are entrenched on both sides of this fence. “It is becoming increasingly clear that the Neanderthals and their modern human successors did not mix and that the Neanderthals are an extinct side branch of humanity” (Klein 2003); see also Currat and Excoffier (2004) and Tattersall (2007). But on the opposite side of the question are Wolpoff et al. (2004), who specifically refute Klein (2003); and Trinkhaus (2007), who believes that paleoanthropology shows definitively that the Neanderthals and moderns interbred, and the case is closed. Not so, says Paabo (Morgan 2009), whose belief in DNA and genome mapping (Green et al. 2008) bring him down on the side of almost total lack of interbreeding between Neanderthals and later humans. There would appear to be practically no middle ground between the two camps

Predictably, progressive (old-earth) creationist Hugh Ross much prefers the DNA “proof” that Neanderthals and modern humans did not interbreed10; this is an extremely important matter to Ross, because if it can be shown that they did intermix, this would be “fatal to the current Progressive Creationist model,” according to Line (2007).

Obviously creationists and evolutionists are grappling with the same questions. Lubenow’s remark that the disappearance of the Neanderthals is like the disappearance of the Cheshire cat (Carroll 1865), whose grin remains to taunt evolutionists (Lubenow 2004, p. 81), applies equally to creationists. Clearly, the matter of what caused the disappearance of the Neanderthals has not been clear at all.

A major problem with most of the proffered hypotheses on the Neanderthal extinction is the widening geographical distribution of Neanderthal sites that have been located in the past few years, a subject that will be discussed later in this paper. Many authors address extinction of the Neanderthals in Europe, for example, and then rather ignore the ones in more far-flung places. Did other Neanderthals in other places become extinct for the same reasons? The whole subject becomes more complicated as the very large distances involved make it increasingly difficult to assume that everything can be explained by merely saying that the Neanderthals were nomadic.

However, the problem of the demise of the Neanderthals goes away entirely if we accept that Cuozzo is correct in his conclusions that the Neanderthals were the post-Flood long-lived people who spread out from Babel in all directions. Their “disappearance” would have occurred when they no longer lived long enough to develop the distinctive Neanderthal characteristics.11 The modern humans who supposedly “replaced” the Neanderthals would be the descendants of the latter, who did not live as long as their ancestors. This not only makes the matter of the Neanderthal disappearance very simple and straightforward, it also explains why it happens that modern humans arose at around the same time as the Neanderthals disappeared; furthermore, this would be true in all parts of the world. Proponents of Occam’s razor (Occam’s razor 2009), often stated as “The simplest explanation is usually the best,” would recognize the Cuozzo explanation of the Neanderthal demise as a good one.

According to Cuozzo, we would expect that, with people’s decreasing lifespans as time went on, the Neanderthal characteristics would gradually lessen from generation to generation, and then disappear entirely. In fact, this is what we see in various archaeological discoveries, although these are usually interpreted as humans that are the result of intermarriage between the Neanderthal and modern peoples (except for the DNA proponents, who do not agree, and who propose other ideas). For example, excavations in Israel are claimed to show “continuous biological evolution from Neanderthal to anatomically modern Homo sapiens” (Jelinek 1982). Also, at the Neanderthal site in Romania, the human remains display a “mosaic of modern human and archaic and/or Neandertal features” according to the paper published on the find (Soficaru, Dobos, and Trinkaus 2006). Creationists have hailed this as exciting news and further evidence that the Neanderthals were fully human beings (Anderson 2006; Jaroncyk 2007).

It follows logically that Cuozzo’s work knocks out the underpinnings of the Ross old-earth belief system, since the Ross view of Neanderthals as animals without spirits is nullified.

Neanderthal DNA: What Does It Tell Us? As we have seen in the previous section, genetics and paleoanthropology are pitted against each other in the matter of the Neanderthal disappearance. On the one side, the geneticists, leaning on mapping of the Neanderthal genome and DNA sequencing, do not believe that we carry any Neanderthal genes today, lending their support to extinction of the Neanderthals as a side group not in our direct lineage. On the other side, the paleoanthropologists, pointing to the fossils they have found, believe that there was mixing between the Neanderthals and our modern ancestors, and that we surely must have Neanderthal genes in our makeup, no matter what anyone says. If Cuozzo is right that we are all descended from Neanderthals, then the paleoanthropologists must be correct as well. But what of the DNA?

Recent publications by two creationist scientists may dampen enthusiasm for drawing firm conclusions from studies of Neanderthal DNA. Carter (2009), a geneticist, cautions that we need to be skeptical about evolutionary assumptions, accuracy of the mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) sequence, and other factors that might lead to wrong conclusions. Criswell (2009), a molecular biologist, points out that, although DNA has been extracted from Neanderthals, this does not necessarily mean that the DNA is of very good quality, especially because of contamination of the samples and (not surprisingly) decay over the millennia. It is beyond the scope of this paper to cover this subject in detail; those interested in pursuing the matter of Neanderthal DNA in more depth are encouraged to read both of these papers.

DNA is one area where Cuozzo and Lubenow agree. The latter’s Chapter 23, “Technical Section: mtDNA Neandertal Park—A Catch 22,” is an excellent overview of the matter of DNA, including the political implications of the struggle that he calls “the molecules” versus “the fossils” (this chapter is not very technical in spite of its title) (Lubenow 2004). The bottom line is that Lubenow does not consider DNA to be a reliable source of scientific information. Cuozzo does not put any weight on the mtDNA results, either, stating that there are changes in mtDNA over a person’s lifetime, so that the old Neanderthals would have different mtDNA than the young ones; the genome of the ancient people would have been far less devolved than ours; and genetic mutations in mtDNA have been occurring much faster than previously believed (Cuozzo 2009). This theme of continuous human physical degeneration from the earliest people to the present has been ably developed by Sanford (2008), who attributes the shortening of our lifespan throughout the millennia to accumulation of damaging genetic mutations.

One more thing should be mentioned here. If these Neanderthals were extremely old when they died, it would not be surprising if they showed some old-age characteristics, such as arthritis, and some signs of trauma such as healed broken bones (Trinkaus 1978). Indeed, it is surprising that the skeletons of these old people were in such good shape overall at the time of their death. Writers go on and on about how strong these people were (for example, Trinkaus 1978). By comparison, we can see how much we humans have degenerated in the thousands of years since then; our own old people, who do not live nearly as long, show many signs of disease and deterioration in their old age. Degeneration of our genome has taken its very visible toll.

Slow Maturation of Neanderthal Children and Its timeline Implications The fossils of young Neanderthals examined by Cuozzo displayed characteristics that he believed could only be explained by a very slow rate of maturation, compared to the rate of maturation of children today (Cuozzo 1998, 2003). Since modern humans are considered to be slow to mature in the general scheme of living beings, this meant that the Neanderthals’ rate would have been very slow indeed. According to Krogman (1972, p. 2),

Man has absolutely the most protracted period of infancy, childhood and juvenility of all forms of life . . . . Nearly thirty percent of his entire life-span is devoted to growing. That percent would be considered a bit high today in countries where life expectancy at birth is now over 80 years, but many countries still have a far lower life expectancy (Life expectancy at birth 2008), thus increasing the percentage of total lifetime spent growing up.

But by contrast, most secular scientists believed that Neanderthals had matured exceptionally fast; the usual explanation was that chimpanzees (touted widely as “our closest living relatives”; see, for example, Lovgren 2005) also matured rapidly (Moskowitz 2008). Indeed, Rozzi and de Castro (2004) studied Neanderthal teeth and reached the conclusion that Neanderthals became adults by a mere 15 years old. Whether or not creationists as a whole have accepted an unusually short lifespan of Neanderthals (perhaps because of belief that climate and disease factors caused the Neanderthal morphology), and a short maturation time, is hard to say, as it is difficult to find much in print on this point. However, on the matter of exceptionally long-lived, slow-maturing Neanderthals, Cuozzo was swimming nearly alone against the current.12 That is, until a group of evolutionists (Ponce de Leon et al. 2008) concluded from a study of skeletons that Neanderthals probably matured more slowly (after infancy) than modern humans, and lived to a relatively ripe old age, considering the popular view of short-lived Neanderthals; thus giving Cuozzo at least some support from an unexpected quarter.

If Neanderthal children matured very slowly compared to us today, it follows logically that it took longer than now to reach adulthood. Since we are postulating that the Neanderthals were the old people of the Bible, we will start by looking at what age the biblical long-lived people are recorded as starting to sire children.

There are two genealogies (in chapters 5 and 11 of Genesis), plus some scattered statistics later on in the Bible, that give us tantalizing pieces of this information. In addition, there are two main versions of these genealogies that have come down to us in the Masoretic and Septuagint manuscripts, with differing numbers in the places where it matters to us most—the ages given when men fathered their first sons. For instance, did Arphaxad, grandson of Noah, really have his first son when he was only 35 years old, as the Masoretic says (Genesis 11:12)? Since the Masoretic says he lived a total of 438 years (Genesis 11:13), he would have had his first son when he was only 8% into his total lifespan. But if he was actually 135 when he fathered this son, according to the Septuagint he would have been 24% into his given lifespan of 565 years (Genesis 11:12,13), a more normal proportion throughout history, and even today. (The Masoretic and Septuagint manuscripts give different figures for Arphaxad’s total lifespan.)

The concept that the length of time between birth and sexual maturation might be related to the overall lifespan of humans has not been widely considered, and more work should be done in this area. It is this author’s suggestion that Cuozzo’s Neanderthal work points to the longer ages to fatherhood that are indicated in the Septuagint numerical genealogies, thus lengthening the earth’s historical timeline by some centuries.13

One way of getting around the problem of needing more time to account for historical events has been to accept the Masoretic figures, but to allow for time gaps in the early Genesis genealogies by claiming that the real amount of historical time was not intended to be known.14 This author rejects the idea of gaps in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies, on the basis that the numbers indicate that those genealogies are obviously intended to give a continuous time history.15

Cuozzo (1998a, pp. 253–4) prefers to keep to the Masoretic chronology while at the same time postulating a very slow rate of Neanderthal maturation; however, he admits that he has not studied this timeline angle (Cuozzo 2009, personal communication).

Neanderthal Sites Fig. 8. World map showing spread of Neanderthal sites. Information for this map was taken by the author from various sources cited in the text of this paper, and is not intended to show all Neanderthal sites. Implications of Distribution of Worldwide Neanderthal Sites The widely held creationist belief that the Neanderthals must have been one of a number of family groups that traveled outwards in all directions from Babel worked fine as long as most of the discovered Neanderthal sites were in Europe and the Middle East (see map at List of Neanderthal sites 2009). This made sense, because it looked as if the Neanderthals were a nomadic family tribe that had headed northwest from Babel, split into groups, and settled in various places (Oard 1996, see map p. 58).

But the Neanderthal territory kept expanding (see fig. 8). Neanderthals have been found as far east as southern Siberia, close to China (Anitei 2007; Krause et al. 2007b), and down to the southern tip of Africa.16 Obviously they got around a lot more than had been previously thought.17 We see then that the very wide distribution of Neanderthals, as shown in Fig. 8, backs the idea that they were the people who dispersed in all directions from Babel, as Cuozzo believes. This also makes the Lubenow view of Neanderthals as a small variant group less likely.

A further look at Fig. 8 shows not only where Neanderthals have been found, but also where they have not been found. There are no Neanderthal sites in North or South America, Greenland or Australia. The question is, why not?

The world map (fig. 8) shows Neanderthal occupation along the western coast of Europe and northern Africa, meaning that ancient long-lived people migrated westward only that far. The most obvious barrier to further westward migration would have been the Atlantic ocean, with the corollary that the original land mass must have broken up some time before these people got to the western coasts.18 This would put the latest possible time of earth’s breakup fairly soon after the Babel dispersion; otherwise there would have been time for the early post-Flood people to have migrated westward to the territory that is now North America, and this apparently did not happen. (Obviously, if ever Neanderthals were found in North America, this would change the history of this continent. However, according to this map, it seems unlikely.)

Naturally, this matter is of no concern to those who believe that the earth broke up during the Flood. However, there are those who believe that the breakup of the earth occurred at the time of the birth of Peleg, because of the statement in Genesis 10:25 that “in his days was the earth divided.” This latter group has proposed various scenarios, with differing times when they think the earth broke up. Northrup (1996) and Lanser (2009) believe the breakup occurred 200 years after Babel, while Setterfield (1999) puts breakup 159 years after Babel. These periods of time would seem to be too long, as the probability is high that the Neanderthals could have arrived at and beyond the western shores of Europe from Babel in less than that time; however, this is difficult to prove one way or the other. Nelson does not propose an actual period of time between Babel and the subsequent earth breakup, but believes that the breakup of the earth helped to disperse people around the world, including the Americas (Nelson 2007, p. 102). The actual pattern of the Neanderthal sites refutes this, because the earth’s breakup had to have prevented, rather than caused, worldwide dispersal of peoples after Babel.

Based on Cuozzo’s work, we can say that people did not arrive in North America until after the human lifespan had shortened to the point that humans no longer developed the Neanderthal characteristics. This is in keeping with the disappearance of the Neanderthals everywhere before the end of the Ice Age, and the appearance of humans in North America in post-Ice- Age times. Not surprisingly, secular scientists are happy to put figures on these events for us: although they differ somewhat on when the earliest people arrived in North America, they are agreed that it was probably between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago on their evolutionary time scale. (For earliest human indications found in North America so far, see Gilbert et al. 2008). Since Neanderthals are commonly believed to have all disappeared by about 30,000 years ago (Lewin 1999, p. 156), this puts a gap between the demise of the Neanderthals elsewhere in the world and the arrival of humans in North America.19

Oard (2006a, see map p. 128) suggests that after the Babel dispersion people eventually migrated all across Asia, and crossed from the eastern point of Siberia to what is now Alaska, spreading south from there into the Americas. If we use our Neanderthals as a marker, the crossing to Alaska would most likely have taken place after the Ice Age, when the Neanderthals had “died out,” and could not have occurred early in the Ice Age as suggested by Oard (2000; 2006a, p. 130). Schroeder’s (2005) somewhat novel idea of immediate post-Babel people sailing around an icefree Arctic ocean, and migrating south through the Bering Strait to settle in countries around the Pacific Ocean could be supported only if Neanderthals could be found in these areas. As we see from Fig. 8, none have been found in these places so far; it appears that people headed out from Babel in all directions by land. (In any case, it would be questionable whether any of these small migrating groups, struggling for survival in an Ice-Age climate, would have had the resources to build a seafaring boat.) It was only later, in post-Neanderthal times, that people migrated to the Pacific rim lands, by which time the northern sea would have been full of ice (Oard 2006a, p. 96).

As a side comment, the huge territory that was occupied by Neanderthals has also had implications for those who advocate illness or climate as the cause of the Neanderthal morphology. It seems highly unlikely that all the widespread Neanderthals could have had rickets, syphilis, or whatever; or that the climate variations in these widespread regions would have affected all these people the same way.

The Ice Age, Geology, and Archaeology As noted earlier, scholars believe that the Neanderthals “disappeared” some time before the end of the Ice Age. The Neanderthal demise and the Ice-Age meltdown are therefore historical events that occurred fairly close together in time.

Creationists understand this Ice Age to have occurred in post-Flood times. How many years in the past the Flood took place is subject to timeline differences of opinion (for example, Masoretic versus Septuagint genealogy numbers, and differing calculations of chronology of biblical events). In addition, there are assumptions necessarily inherent in calculations of the length of the Ice Age itself; Oard (2006a) goes into these in some detail. Indeed, if we attach the “disappearance” of the Neanderthals to the shortening of the human lifespan, the actual time in history when people no longer displayed Neanderthal characteristics may have differed in various parts of the world because of lifestyle, climate, or other factors. The Ice- Age meltdown, therefore, can only provide us with a general historical marker with respect to the Neanderthals.

It is hard for us to imagine what the world must have been like during the catastrophic period of the melting of the great continental ice sheets and the glaciers in high mountains. Enormous amounts of water were released from the melting ice, causing flooding and great changes in the landscape, and raising world ocean levels from their minimum at the height of the glaciation to approximately their level today (Lamb 1997, pp. 114–116).

One country that has been affected quite clearly by this kind of geologic history is Egypt. The high mountains in the African countries south of Egypt developed large glaciers during the Ice Age; in the time of the Ice-Age melting, vast amounts of water flowed down the Nile tributaries and northward in the Nile valley. At about the same time, a belt of heavy monsoon rains moved northward in Africa, adding to the extraordinary Nile inundations of this time (Bard 1999, p. 16; Close 1996, pp. 43–46). Great amounts of silt washed down the Nile along with all this torrential water and largely formed the huge fan-shaped delta at Egypt’s north end on the Mediterranean (Stanley and Warne 1993). This catastrophic flooding effectively destroyed many signs of prehistoric Ice-Age habitation along the Nile, of which only remnants have been found by archaeologists (Close 1996, p. 43; Edwards 1970, pp. 62–72; Mithen 2003, pp. 451–452; Shaw 2002, p. 29). We might expect that the very earliest people who lived in Egypt before the Ice-Age meltdown would have been Neanderthals who had migrated from Babel, and whose descendants moved elsewhere when the meltdown flooding began. During this period of the inundations, Egypt was effectively unpopulated. After the era of Ice-Age meltdown flooding ended, Egypt was eventually repopulated by modern people; therefore all known civilization in Egypt from earliest predynastic times on is post Ice Age. This sequence of events in earliest ancient Egypt has been well developed by various historians (see, for example, Midant-Reynes, 2000; Shaw 2002).

Parenthetically, there are wider implications of this early Egyptian history. We know that, to avoid famine in Canaan, Abraham picked up and went to Egypt (Genesis 12:10–20). There was a pharaoh reigning there then, a pharaoh that was powerful enough to intimidate Abraham, who lied about Sarah’s marital status to protect himself (Genesis 12:13). This means that by the time of Abraham’s visit, Egypt’s population and civilization had developed sufficiently to have a strong ruler in place, and the Ice Age was long past. The currently accepted 700-year Ice Age (Oard 2006b) does not fit into the 427 years allowed by Usshur (1658, p. 25) and Jones (2007, CD and p. 57) for all the geological and historical events that occurred between the Flood and Abraham’s Egyptian sojourn. Furthermore, according to the Usshur/Jones chronology, a 700-year Ice Age starting after the Flood would place Jacob’s arrival in Egypt (Genesis 46, 47) during the period of the Nile inundations from the Ice-Age meltdown, while the delta, where Goshen was located, was still being formed from the silt. One possible solution to this problem would be to shorten the complete Ice Age, meltdown and all, to about 300 years. Another would be to go to the longer timeline offered by the Septuagint chronology, as discussed earlier. What is clear is that the current state of acceptance of both the Masoretic genealogies and the 700- year Ice Age is incompatible with the biblical account and Egyptian history.

Another place that yields historical and geological information from the Ice Age is the large cave at Shanidar in the Zagros mountains of northwest Iraq, where a number of Neanderthals have been found (Hirst 2009; Trinkaus and Shipman 1993, pp.334–341.) Because of the Neanderthal occupation, we know that this cave had to have been there during at least part of the Ice Age, and also had to have survived the end-of-Ice-Age flooding which took place in the area (the cave is located on a hillside high above the valley bottom). In addition, we know that the mountains in this area must have been already formed well before the end of the Ice Age.

As in Egypt, so in Mesopotamia the Ice-Age meltdown made an enormous difference in the geology of the country. When the Shanidar Neanderthals looked out of their cave toward the Greater Zab River valley of Northern Iraq, they could not have envisioned the great torrents of water that would later flow down this tributary to the Tigris River at the end of the Ice Age. The entire southern half of Mesopotamia is composed of the delta formed largely by silts washed down the Tigris and Euphrates rivers from the north during the great floods of the Ice-Age meltdown (see, for instance, McIntosh 2005, pp. 8–9; Nutzel 1979; Persian Gulf Once Dry, Green, and Inhabited by Humans 2007; Postgate 1992). This has implications for those who look for the Tower of Babel on this delta, since everything in southern Mesopotamia has to be post Ice Age, including the ancient city of Babylon.

At the peak of the Ice Age, world ocean levels were at their minimum because of the huge amount of water that had been frozen onto the thick continental ice sheets.20 The ancient stone constructions around the world that are located under water, not far from current shorelines, may well have been built during the time of the lower ocean levels of the Ice Age. Secular writers are understandably mystified by these sophisticated prehistoric constructions that do not coincide with an evolutionary worldview (Hancock 2002); one might wonder whether these underwater cities were built by Ice- Age people whom we would define as Neanderthals. A Neanderthal skull fragment has been recently dredged up from the North Sea (Vieru 2009); since this sea has an average depth of only 95 m, it would most likely have been dry land at the peak of the Ice Age, and this Neanderthal could well have lived there at that time (About the North Sea 2009).

In a somewhat novel view of history, von Fange (1994, see chart p. 222) places the entire Ice Age and its meltdown before the Babel dispersion. This sequence of events does not fit with known facts for a number of reasons, one of which is that Neanderthals (that is, mankind) had already scattered widely because of the Babel dispersion before the end of the Ice Age. It is beyond the scope of this paper to go more deeply into other aspects of why the Ice Age could not have ended before Babel.

Additionally, the controversial question of whether human tracks appear together with dinosaur tracks is affected by this discussion of Neanderthals and the Ice Age. In North America, especially, the subject is somewhat mixed up with disagreement as to whether certain tracks are actually human or not,21 and whether or not track layers are post Flood.22 What we can say is that if large dinosaur tracks in the Americas or Australia are post Flood, any human-looking tracks that appear with them cannot have been made by humans. This is because the large dinosaurs died out long before post-Ice- Age modern humans reached these lands23; only in countries where Neanderthal sites occur could post-Flood dinosaurs and humans have coexisted.

Closing comments The question is necessarily raised whether traditional paleoanthropology as a science has been adequate for study of Neanderthals without the additional input of specialized medical expertise. Where only traditional paleoanthropology has been applied, not only has the subject of the Neanderthals’ great age at death not even been considered, but faulty medical notions have been accepted (for example, with respect to disease as a supposed cause of the distinctive Neanderthal characteristics). The result has been that application of paleoanthropology alone, without medical input, has led creationists down quite a different path of thinking than the one they might have taken if orthodontic and other applicable medical expertise had been included.

This paper also points out the importance of harmonization of various areas of scientific knowledge with respect to any study. In this discussion of the Neanderthals, we see that paleoanthropology, medicine (including orthodontics, skeletal studies, pathology, ageing studies), computer simulation, genetics, history, paleoarchaeology, geography and geology have all come into play, in addition to the biblical record. It should always be understood that one area of scientific knowledge does not supersede the others in importance. All scientific disciplines involved must be considered and all must contribute equally; otherwise the conclusions may be skewed, and may even be incorrect.

On the matter of the Neanderthals, there is no compromise ground between the two sets of conclusions that have been reached by the two major creationist authorities (Cuozzo and Lubenow), because those conclusions are largely mutually exclusive. Moreover, the implications of this divergence of thought are enormous for the young-earth creationist model, as has been shown in this paper.

The Neanderthals have a lot to say to us, if we will listen. But to hear what the Neanderthals are saying, we must consider the ramifications of Cuozzo’s work which, in turn, balances on whether his scientific expertise is valid or not. This leads to the inevitable admission that if we cannot falsify Cuozzo’s scientific conclusions on the Neanderthals, we are forced to accept them. Ignoring them is not an honest scientific option.

Acknowledgment I would like to thank Dr. Jack Cuozzo for his patience and generosity in answering my many questions during the time of writing this paper.

References About the North Sea: Key Facts. 2009. Safety at Sea Newsletter. Retrieved Oct. 30, 2009, from www.safetyatsea.se/index.php?section=northsea.

Acton, R. 1978. Bone disease simulating ancient age in prehuman fossils. Impact Series #59, May 1, 1978. San Diego, California: Institute for Creation Research.

Albert, A. M., K. Ricanek, and E. Patterson. 2007. A review of the literature on the aging adult skull and face: Implications for forensic science research and applications. Journal of Forensic Science International 172, no. 1:1–9. Retrieved Oct. 30, 2009 from people.uncw.edu/patterson...ions/AlbertRicanekPatters on_FSI2007.pdf.

Anderson, D. 2006. A new Neandertal/modern human fossil hybrid? Creation Ministries International featured article online. November 14, 2006. Retrieved August 28, 2009, from creation.com/a-new-neandertal-modern- humanfossil-hybrid.

ANI. 2009. Neanderthals may have gone extinct because of their small population size. Thaindian News, July 17, 2009. Retrieved August 31, 2009, from www.thaindian.com/newspor...anderthals-may-have-gone- extinctbecause-of-their-small-population-size_100219091.html.

Anitei, S. 2007. Neanderthals reached China! Fossils of Neanderthals from southern Siberia. Softpedia, October 1, 2007. Retrieved August 30, 2009, from news.softpedia.com/newsPD...s-Reached-China-67178.pdf.

Argue, D., M. Morwood, T. Sutikna, Jatmiko, and W. Saptomo. 2009. Homo floresiensis: A cladistic analysis. Journal of Evolution, pub. online July, 2009. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.05.002.

Ashcraft, C. W. 2004. Genetic variability by design. Technical Journal 18, no. 2:98–104.

Baab, K. L. and K. P. McNulty. 2008. Size, shape, and asymmetry in fossil hominins: The status of the LB1 cranium based on 3D morphometric analyses. Journal of Human Evolution. Online preview article retrieved Aug. 13, 2009, from www.karenbaab.com/uploads...abmcnulty2008_size_scalin g_asymmetry_lb1.pdf.

Banks, W. E. F. d’Errico1, A. Townsend Peterson, M. Kageyama, A. Sima, and M.-F. Sánchez-Goñi. 2008. Neanderthal extinction by competitive exclusion. PLoS ONE 3, no. 12:e3972. Retrieved Aug. 18, 2009, from www.plosone.org/article/i.../journal.pone.0003972#top.

Bard, K. A. 1999. Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt. London: Routledge.

Bartlett, S. P., R. Grossman, and L. A. Whitaker. 1992. Age-related changes of the craniofacial skeleton; An anthropometric and histologic analysis. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: Journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons 90, no. 4:592–600.

Beasley, G. J. 1992. A possible creationist interpretation of archaic fossil human remains. Technical Journal 6, no. 2:138–167.

Behrents, R. 1985. Growth in the aging craniofacial skeleton, Monograph 17. Center for Growth and Development. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan.

Bowden, M. 1981. Ape-Man: Fact or Fallacy? 2nd ed. Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications.

Bowden, M. 1988. Homo erectus—a fabricated class of ‘apemen.’ Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 3, no. 1:152–153.

Briggs, A. W. et al. 2009. Targeted retrieval and analysis of five Neandertal mtDNA genomes. Science 325. no. 5938: 318–321. Retrieved abstract August 10, 2009 from www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5938/318.

Brown, P. 1997. Kow Swamp: Is it Homo erectus? Retrieved May 8, 2009 from www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/kowswamp.html.

Brown, P., T. Sutikna, M. J. Morwood, R. P. Soejono, Jatmiko, E. W. Saptomo, and R. A. Due. 2004. A new small-bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia. Nature 431:1055–1061.

Brow ridge. n.d. The Museum for Comparative Anthropogeny, web site of the Center for Academic Research & Training in Anthropogeny. Retrieved January 1, 2010 from carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/brow-ridge.

Carnieri, E. 2006. Who killed the Neanderthals? Human Evolution 21:337–340.

Carroll, L. 1865. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Oxford: MacMillan 1865, and New York: Appleton 1866.

Carter, R. W. 2009. The Neanderthal mitochondrial genome does not support evolution. Journal of Creation 23. no. 1: 40–43.

Close, A. E. 1996. Plus ca change: The Pleistocene–Holocene transition in Northeast Africa. In Humans at the end of the Ice Age: The archaeology of the Pleistocene, ed. L. G. Straus. New York: Plenum Pub. Corp.

Conrad, E. 1986. Creationists and Neandertal. Creation Evolution Journal 6, no. 3:24–33.

Criswell, D. 2009. Neanderthal DNA and modern humans. Creation Research Society Quarterly 45, no. 4:246–254.

Cuozzo, J. W. 1987. Earlier orthodontic intervention: A view from prehistory. The Journal of the New Jersey Dental Association 58, no. 4:33– 40.

Cuozzo, J. W. 1991. Asymmetric adult growth and mechanical advantage in the etiology of the myofacial pain dysfunction syndrome: A case report. The Journal of the New Jersey Dental Association 62, no. 4:23–29, 31.

Cuozzo, J. W. 1994. Neanderthal children’s fossils: Reconstruction and interpretation distorted by assumptions. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 8, no. 2:166–178. Retrieved October 30, 2009 from creation.com/neandertal-childrens-fossils.

Cuozzo, J. W. 1998a. Buried alive. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books.

Cuozzo, J. W. 1998b. What happens to the craniofacial structure of humans who live past 100 years? Neanderthal similarities. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on creationism, ed. R. E. Walsh, pp. 103– 119. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.

Cuozzo, J. W. 2003. Buried alive supplement CD.

Cuozzo, J. W. 2009. Neanderthal DNA. Retrieved September 10, 2009 from jackcuozzo.com/dna.html.

Currat, M. and L. Excoffier. 2004. Modern humans did not admix with Neanderthals during their range expansion into Europe. PLoS Biology 2, no. 12:e421. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020421.

Custance, A. C. 1968. Fossil man in the light of the record in Genesis. Creation Research Society Quarterly 5. no. 1:5–22.

Dean, C. M. G. Leakey, D. Reid, F. Schrenk, G. T. Schwartz, C. Stringer, and A. Walker. 2001. Growth processes in teeth distinguish modern humans from Homo erectus and earlier hominins. Nature 414:628–631.

Dobson, J. E. 1998. The iodine factor in health and evolution. The Geographical Review 88:1–28.

Drell, R. R. 2000. Neanderthals: A history of interpretation. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19(1):1–24. Retrieved July 25, 2009, from archaeology.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm? zi=1/XJ&sdn=archaeology&cdn=education&tm=36&f=00&su=p897.4.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=1 &bts=1&zu=http%3A//dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0092.00096.

Edwards, I. E. S. 1970. The Cambridge ancient history: Part I, 3rd ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Fabre, V., S. Condemi, and A. Degioanni. 2009. Genetic evidence of geographical groups among Neanderthals. PLoS ONE 4. no. 4:e5151. Retrieved August 13, 2009 from www.plosone.org/article/i...1371/journal.pone.0005151.

Field, E. 1894. The duel. In Love-Songs of Childhood. New York: Scribner.

Flores, J. C. 1998. A mathematical model for Neanderthal extinction. Journal of Theoretical Biology 191, no. 3: 295–298.

Foley, J. 2008. Comparison of all skulls. Retrieved August 4, 2009, from Talk Origins online: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html.

Freeman, T. R. 2005. The Genesis 5 and 11 fluidity question. Journal of Creation 19, no. 2:83–90.

Garton, M. 1996. The pattern of fossil tracks in the geological record. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10, no. 1: 82–100.

Gilbert, M. T. P., et al. 2008. DNA from pre-Clovis human coprolites in Oregon, North America. Science 320. no. 5877:786–789. DOI: 10.1126/science.1154116.

Gish, D. T. 1985. Evolution: The challenge of the fossil record. El Cajon, California: Creation-Life Publishers.

Gornitz, V. 2007. Sea level rise, after the ice melted and today. NASA: Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Retrieved Oct. 25, 2009 from: www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/.

Green, R. E. et al. 2008. A complete Neandertal mitochondrial genome sequence determined by high-throughput sequencing. Cell 134, no. 3:416–426.

Guagliardo, M. F. 1982. Craniofacial structure, aging, and dental functions: Their relationships in adult human skeletal series. Doctoral dissertation. Knoxville, Tennessee: University of Tennessee.

Gugliotta, G. 1999. Geographer suggests Neanderthals were just cretins. The Japan Times, June 1, 1999. Retrieved Septe,ber 23, 2009 from www.trussel.com/prehist/news125.htm.

Hancock, G. 2002. Underworld: The mysterious origins of civilization. New York: Three Rivers Press.

Hirst, K. K. 2009. Shanidar Cave (Iraq). Retrieved November 11, 2009 from archaeology.about.com/od/...ughsiterms/g/shanidar.htm.

Hodge, B. 2007. How old is the earth? Retrieved November 4, 2009 from www.answersingenesis.org/...07/05/30/how-old-is-earth.

Hoffecker, J. F. 2002. Desolate landscapes: Ice-age settlement in Eastern Europe. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Hoffecker, J. F. 2005. A prehistory of the north: human settlement of the higher latitudes. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Homo erectus. 2009a. In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 10, 2009 from www.britannica.com/EBchec...opic/270386/Homo-erectus/.

Homo erectus. 2009b. In Wikipedia. Retrieved November 16, 2009, from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus.

Horan, R. D., E. Bulte, and J. F. Shogren. 2005. How trade saved humanity from biological exclusion: An economic theory of Neanderthal extinction. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 58, no. 1:1–29.

Howell, F. C. 1957. The evolutionary significance of variation and varieties of “Neanderthal” man. The Quarterly Review of Biology 32. no. 4:330–347.

Howell, F. C. 1967. The hominization process. In Human Evolution: Readings in physical anthropology, ed. N. Korn. New York: Rinehart and Winston.

Human stabbed a Neanderthal, evidence suggests. 2009. Answers in Genesis, News to note, July 25, 2009. Retrieved October 30, 2009 from www.answersingenesis.org/...7/25/news-tonote-07252009.

Israel, H. 1977. The dichotomous pattern of craniofacial expansion during aging. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 47, no. 1:47–51.

Ivanhoe, F. 1970. Was Virchow right about Neandertal? Nature 227:577–579.

Jaroncyk, R. 2007. A new Neandertal/modern human fossil hybrid? Journal of Creation 21, no. 1:7–8.

Jelinek, A. J. 1982. The Tabun Cave and Paleolithic man in the Levant. Science 216:1369–1375.

Jimenez-Espejo, F. J., F. Martínez-Ruiz, C. Finlayson, A. Paytane, T. Sakamoto, M. Ortega-Huertas, G. Finlayson, K. Iijima, D. Gallego-Torres and D. Fac. 2007.Climate forcing and Neanderthal extinction in Southern Iberia: Insights from a multiproxy marine record. Quaternary Science Reviews 26, no. 7–8:836–852.

Johnson, W. 1982. The crumbling theory of evolution. The Gap, Brisbane,Australia: published by author.

Jones, D-W. 1998. How old is that fossil (in the layer)? Retrieved May 8, 2009 from www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v3i2f.htm.

Jones, F. N. 2007. The chronology of the Old Testament, 16th ed. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books.

Josephus, F. 1988. The works of Josephus. W. Whiston, trans. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.

Jue, D. S. 1990. Cranial capacity and endocranial casts. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 4, no. 1:56–65.

Klein, R. G. 1989. The human career: Human biological and cultural origins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Klein, R. G. 2003. Paleoanthropology: Whither the Neanderthals? Science 299, no. 5612:1525–1527. DOI: 10.1126/science.1082025.

Krause, J. et al. 2007a. The derived FOXP2 variant of modern humans was shared with Neandertals. Current Biology 17. no. 21:1908–1912.

Krause, J. et al. 2007b. Neanderthals in central Asia and Siberia. Nature 449:902–904.

Krogman, W. M. 1972. Child Growth. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Kuban, G. J. 2009. The Paluxy dinosaur/”man track” controversy. Retrieved November 1, 2009 from paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm.

Kuhn , S. L. and M. C. Stiner. 2006. What’s a mother to do? The division of labor among Neandertals and modern humans in Eurasia. Current Anthropology 47(6):953–980.

Lahr, M. M. 1996. The evolution of modern human diversity; A study of cranial variation. Cambridge University Press.

Lamb, H. H. 1997. Climate, history and the modern world. London: Routledge.

Lanser, R. D. 2009. Making sense of the days of Peleg. Bible and Spade 22, no. 2:51–64.

Larson, S. G. et al. 2007. Homo floresiensis and the evolution of the hominin shoulder. Journal of Human Evolution 53. no. 6:718–731.

Leakey, R. 1996. The origin of humankind. New York: Basic Books.

Lewin, R. 1999. The origin of modern humans. 4th ed. United Kingdom: Blackwell Science.

Life expectancy at birth. 2008. The world factbook. Directorate of Intelligence of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.

Line, P. 2005. Fossil evidence for alleged apemen—Part 1: The genus Homo. Journal of Creation 19, no. 1:22–32.

Line, P. 2007. Inconvenient Neandertaloids. Technical Journal 21, no. 1:15– 19.

List of Neanderthal sites. 2009. Wikipedia. Retrieved January 1, 2010 from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Neanderthal_sites.

Lovgren, S. 2005. Chimps, humans 96 percent the same, gene study finds. National Geographic News. Retrieved November 25, 2009 from news.nationalgeographic.c...1_050831_chimp_genes.html .

Lubenow, M. L. 1998. Recovery of Neandertal mtDNA: An evaluation. CEN Technical Journal 12, no. 1:87–97.

Lubenow, M. L. 2000. Lagar Velho 1 child skeleton: a Neanderthal/modern human hybrid. Technical Journal 14, no. 2:6–8. Retrieved October 8, 2009 from creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv14n2_neandertal.pdf.

Lubenow, M. L. 2004. Bones of contention: A creationist assessment of human fossils, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker.

Lubenow, M. L. 2006. The Neanderthals: Our worthy ancestors. Part I: The DNA evidence. Retrieved October 30, 2009 from www.answersingenesis.org/...am/v1/n2/worthy-ancestors.

Lubenow, M.L. 2007. The Neanderthals: Our worthy ancestors. Part II: The fossil and archaeological evidence. Retrieved October 30, 2009, from www.answersingenesis.org/.../v2/n1/worthy-ancestors-2.

McIntosh, J. 2005. Ancient Mesopotamia: New perspectives. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO.

McKie, R. 2009. How Neanderthals met a grisly fate: devoured by humans. The Observer, Sunday 17 May 2009. Retrieved September 1, 2009 from www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/17/neanderthals- cannibalismanthropological-sciences-journal.

Mehlert, A. W. 1994. Homo erectus ‘to’ modern man: Evolution or human variability? Journal of Creation 8, no. 1:105–116.

Mellars, P. 1996. The Neanderthal legacy: An archaeological perspective from western Europe. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Midant-Reynes, B. 2000. The prehistory of Egypt from the first Egyptians to the first pharaohs. Oxford, England:Blackwell; Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.

Miller, M. 2001. The Neanderthal demise: was it love, or was it war (with modern humans)? Athena Review 2, no. 4. Retrieved October 29, 2009 from www.athenapub.com/8miller1.htm.

Milner, C. S., R. A. Neave, and C. M. Wilkinson. 2001. Predicting growth in the aging craniofacial skeleton. Paper presented at the 9th Biennial Meeting of the International Association for Craniofacial Identification, FBI, Washington, DC, July 2000. Retrieved October 30, 2009 from www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2001/milner.htm.

Mithen, S. 2003. After the ice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Morgan, J. 2009. Neanderthals ‘distinct from us.’ BBC News, Chicago. 12 February 2009. Retrieved August 28, 2009 from news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7886477.stm.

Morris, H. M. 1976. The Genesis Record. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.

Moskowitz, C. 2008. Neanderthal brains grew like ours. Livescience web site, September 8, 2008. Retrieved September 24, 2009 from www.livescience.com/histo...8-neanderthal-skulls.html.

Murdock, M. 2004. Sahelanthropus tchadensis—the ambiguous ape. Technical Journal 18, no. 3:110–115.

Murdock, M. 2006. These apes were made for walking: The pelves of Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus. Technical Journal 20, no. 2:104–112.

Neanderthal. 2009. Wikipedia. Figs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 retrieved November 16, 2009 from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Neanderthal. In addition, the courtesy of the following link is requested for fig. 7: www.ifi.uzh.ch/staff/zolli/CAP/Main_face.htm.

Nelson, J. W. 2004. Genetic variability and human history. Technical Journal 18, no. 3:18–23.

Nelson, D. P. 2007. Peleg: Early earth movements. Clarksburg, West Virginia: Pelegpress.

Neuroscience and intelligence. 2009. Wikipedia. Modified September 29, 2009. Retrieved October 5, 2009, from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence.

Northrup, B. E. 1996. On finding an Ice Age book. Published online. Retrieved September 18, 2009, at ldolphin.org/iceage.html.

Oard, M. 1996. Life in the great ice age. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books.

Oard, M. 2000. Did ‘old world early Paleolithic’ people travel to North America? Journal of Creation 14, no. 3:3–5.

Oard, M. 2003a. Neandertal man—the changing picture. An overview of how this alleged ‘subhuman’ is being progressively rehabilitated, despite the evolutionary bias resisting the trend. Creation 25, no. 4:10–14.

Oard, M. 2003b. Do genetic differences disprove that Neandertals and modern humans interbred? Journal of Creation 17, no. 2:18.

Oard, M. 2003c. In the footsteps of giants. Creation 25, no. 2:10–12.

Oard, M. 2005. Book review: Bones of contention—revised edition of 1992 book by Lubenow. Creation Research Society Quarterly 42, no. 1:79.

Oard, M. 2006a. Frozen in time. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books.

Oard, M. 2006b. Where does the Ice Age fit? In The new answers book, ed. K. Ham, pp. 207–219. Green Forest, Arkansas: New Leaf Press. Retrieved Oct. 26, 2009, from www.answersingenesis.org/...s/nab/where-does-ice-age- fit.

Oard, M. 2009. New footprints from Ileret, Kenya. Journal of Creation 23, no. 2:3–4.

O’Connor, C. F., R. G. Franciscus, and N. E. Holton. 2004. Bite force production capability and efficiency in Neandertals and modern humans. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 127, no. 2:129–151.

Occam’s razor. 2009. Wikipedia. Retrieved August 28, 2009 from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor.

Parker, G. 2006. The fossil evidence. Creation: facts of life. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. Retrieved October 31, 2009 from www.answersingenesis.org/...cfol/ch3-human-beings.asp.

Paul, G.S. (ed.). 2000. The Scientific American book of dinosaurs. New York, New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Persian Gulf Once Dry, Green, and Inhabited by Humans 2007. Suburban Emergency Management Project. Biot Report #422: May 15, 2007. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php? BiotID=422.

Phillips, D. 2000. Neanderthals are still human! Retrieved July 23, 2009 from www.icr.org/article/neanderthalsare-still-human/.

Ponce de Leon, M. S. et al. 2008. Neanderthal brain size at birth provides insights into the evolution of human life history. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105, no. 37:13764–68.

Postgate, J. N. 1992. Early Mesopotamia: Society and economy at the dawn of history. London, England: Routledge.

Purdom, G. 2007. Red-haired, fast-talking Neanderthals. Answers in Depth 2:163–165. Nov. 21, 2007, Retrieved October 31, 2009, from www.answersingenesis.org/...1/red-haired-fast-talking.

Rae, T. C., U. S. Viðarsdóttir, N. Jeffery and A. T. Steegmann, Jr. 2006. Developmental response to cold stress in cranial morphology of Rattus; Implications for the interpretation of climatic adaptation in fossil hominins. Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 273, no. 1601:2605–2610.

Rana, F. and H. Ross. 2005. Who was Adam? A creation model approach to the origin of man. Colorado Springs, Colorado: NavPress.

Reed, J. K., A. S. Kulikovsky, and M. J. Oard. 2009. Can recolonization explain the rock record? Creation Research Society Quarterly 46, no. 1:27— 39.

Reed, J. K. and M. J. Oard (eds.). 2006. The geologic column: Perspectives within diluvial geology. Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society Books.

Regal, B. 2004. Human evolution: a guide to the debates. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO.

Richards, M. P., K. Harvati, V. Grimes, C. Smith, T. Smith, J.-J. Hublin, P. Karkanas and E. Panagopoulou. 2008. Strontium isotope evidence of Neanderthal mobility at the site of Lakonis, Greece, using laser-ablation PIMMS. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, no. 5:1251–1256.

Robbins, A. 2009. Neanderthal life spans and the Bible. Bible and Spade 22, no. 2:46–50.

Robertson, M. and J. Sarfati. 2003. More evidence Neandertals were fully human. Technical Journal 17, no. 3:13.

Rosnau, P. O., J. Auldaney, G. F. Howe, and W. Waisgerber. 1989a. Are human and mammal tracks found together with the tracks of dinosaurs in the Kayenta of Arizona? Part 1. Creation Research Society Quarterly 26. no. 2: 41–48.

Rosnau, P. O., J. Auldaney, G. F. Howe, and W. Waisgerber. 1989b. Are human and mammal tracks found together with the tracks of dinosaurs in the Kayenta of Arizona? Part 2. Creation Research Society Quarterly 26. no. 3:77–99.

Rozzi, F. V. R. and de Castro, J. M. B. 2004. Surprisingly rapid growth in Neanderthals. Nature 428:936–939.

Rozzi, F. V. R,. F. V. Ramirez Rozzi, F. d’Errico, M. Vanhaeren, P. M. Grootes, B. Kerautret, and V. Dujardin. 2009. Cutmarked human remains bearing Neandertal features and modern human remains associated with the Aurignacian at Les Rois. Journal of Anthropological Sciences 87:153–185.

Rusch, W. H. 1964. Eskimos and Aleuts: Their origins and evolution. Creation Research Society Quarterly 1, no. 1: 13–14.

Rusch, W. H. 1971. Human footprints in rocks. Creation Research Society Quarterly 7, no. 4:201–213.

Sanders, R. 1999. Bone fragments link Neanderthals with cannibalism. Retrieved August 19, 2009 from www.berkeley.edu/news/ber.../1999/1006/cannibals.html.

Sanford, J. C. 2008. Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome. Waterloo, New York: FMS Publications.

Sarfati, J. 2004. Refuting compromise. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books.

Schrenk, F. and S. Muller. 2008. The Neanderthals, p. x. London: Taylor & Francis.

Schroeder, L. L. 2005. A possible post-Flood human migration route. Technical Journal 19, no. 1:65–72.

Schultz, M. 2008. Rudolf Virchow. Emerging Infectious Diseases 14, no. 9:1480–1481.

Setterfield, B. 1999. Rev. 2003 and 2007. Ancient chronology in Scripture. Retrieved September 19, 2009 from www.setterfield.org/000docs/scriptchron.htm#toadam.

Shaw, I. (ed.). 2002. The Oxford illustrated history of ancient Egypt. Oxford, England: Oxford university Press.

Shaw, R. D. 1970. Fossil man: Ancestor or descendant of Adam? Creation Research Society Quarterly 6, no. 4:172–181.

Shea, J. J. 2001. Modern human origins and Neanderthal extinctions in the Levant. Athena Review 2, no. 4:21– 32.

Silvestru, E. 2004. Human and dinosaur fossil footprints in the Upper Cretaceous of North America? Journal of Creation 18, no. 2:114–120.

Snelling, A. 2007. A catastrophic breakup. Answers 2, no. 2:44–48. Retrieved November 1, 2009 from www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/a- catastrophicbreakup.

Snelling, A. 2009. Radiometric dating 101: Part 2. Answers 4, no. 4:71–73.

Soficaru, A., A. Dobos, and E. Trinkaus. 2006. Early modern humans from the Pestera Muierii, Baia de Fier, Romania. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103, no. 46:17196–17201.

Sorensen, B. n.d. Demography and the extinction of the European Neanderthals. Retrieved September 16, 2009, from energy.ruc.dk/Neanderthal%20Demography.pdf.

Spencer, M. A. and B. Demes. 1993. Biomechanical analysis of masticatory system configuration in Neandertals and Inuits. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 91, no. 1:1–20.

Speth, J. D. 2004. News flash: Negative evidence convicts Neanderthals of gross mental incompetence. World Archaeology 36, no. 4:519–526. Debates in World Archaeology.

Stanley, D. J. and A. G. Warne. 1993. Sea level and initiation of predynastic culture in the Nile delta. Nature 363: 435–438.

Stone, T. and M. L. Cupper 2003. Last glacial maximum ages for robust humans at Kow Swamp, southern Australia. Journal of Human Evolution 45, no. 2:99– 111.

Stringer, C. and R. McKie. 1996. African exodus: The origins of modern humanity. New York: Henry Holt.

Swaminathan, N. 2007. Cave speak: Did Neandertals talk? Discovery of the human variant of the FOXP2 gene in Neandertals suggests they may have had language skills. Retrieved September 6, 2007, from www.scientificamerican.co...=cave-speak-didneandertal.

Tattersall, I. 2007. Neanderthals, Homo sapiens, and the question of species in paleoanthropology. Journal of Anthropological Sciences 85:139–146.

Taylor, I. T. 2008. In the minds of men: Darwin and the new world order, 6th ed. Foley, Minnesota: TFE Publishing in cooperation with Creation Moments.

Tinkle, W. J. 1968. The ancestry of man. Creation Research Society Quarterly 5, no. 1:42–45.

Trinkaus, E. 1978. Hard times among the Neanderthals. Natural History 87, no. 10:58–63.

Trinkaus, E. 2007. European early modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, no. 18:7367–7372.

Trinkaus, E. and P. Shipman. 1993. The Neanderthals: Changing the image of mankind. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Turkana Boy. 2009. Wikipedia. Retrieved August 6, 2009 from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_Boy.

Twain, M. 1883. Life on the Mississippi. Boston, Massachusetts: James R. Osgood & Co.

Tyler, D. J. 2005. The amazing shrinking humans from Flores. Origins Journal 41:8–11.

Tyler, D. J. 2006. Recolonisation and the Mabbul. In The geologic column: Perspectives within diluvial geology. eds. J. K. Reed and M. J. Oard. Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society Books.

Underdown, S. 2008. A potential role for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in Neanderthal extinction. Medical Hypotheses 71. no. 1:4– 7.

Usshur, J. 1658. Rev. L. and M. Pierce. 2003. The annals of the world. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books.

Van Andel, T. H. and W. Davies (eds.). 2004. Neanderthal and modern humans in the European landscape of the last glaciation. McDonald Institute Monographs. Cambridge, England: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

Van Bebber, M. and P. S. Taylor, 1994. Creation and time. Mesa, Arizona: Eden Productions.

Vieru, T. 2009. Neanderthal skull fragment dredged from North Sea. Retrieved October 30, 2009 from news.softpedia.com/news/Neanderthal-Skull- Fragment-Dredged-from-North-Sea-114301.shtml.

Von Fange, E. A. 1994. Noah to Abraham: the turbulent years. Published by author.

Walker, A. and P. Shipman. 1996. The wisdom of the bones: in search of human origins. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Weaver, T. D., C. C. Roseman, and C. B. Stringer. 2007. Were Neandertal and modern human cranial differences produced by natural selection or genetic drift? Journal of Human Evolution 53, no. 2:135–145.

Whitcomb, J. C. and H. M. Morris. 1961. The Genesis Flood: The biblical record and its scientific implications. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing.

Wieland, C. 1994. New evidence: only people ever walked really upright. Technical Journal 8. no. 2:127–128.

Wieland, C. 2002. Skull wars: New Homo erectus skull in Ethiopia. Retrieved February 19, 2009 from www.icr.org/article/neanderthals-are-still- human/.

Wieland, C. 2008. A fusillade of shots in the Hobbit Wars. Journal of Creation 22, no. 3:25–27.

Wise, K. 2005. The Flores skeleton and human baraminology. Occasional Papers of the BSG 6:1–13.

Wise, K. 2008. Lucy was buried first: Babel helps explain the sequence of ape and human fossils. Answers 3. no. 2:66–68. Retrieved August 10, 2009 from: www.answersingenesis.org/...m/v3/n2/lucy-buried-first.

Wolpoff, M. H, B. Mannheim, A. Mann, J. Hawks, R. Caspari, K. Rosenberg, D. Frayer, G. Gill, and G. Clark. 2004. Why not the Neandertals? World Archaeology 36, no. 4: 527–546.

Wolpoff, M. H. and R. Caspari. 1996. Race and human evolution: A fatal attraction. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Wood, T. 2008. Four women, a boat, and lots of kids: A reevaluation of mitochondrial Eve. Answers 3, no. 2:70–74. Retrieved February 19, 2009 from www.answersingenesis.org/...3/n2/four-women-boat-kids.

Woodmorappe, J. 2000. How different is the cranial-vault thickness of Homo erectus from modern man? Journal of Creation 14, no. 1:10–13.

Young, J. A. 2003. Septuagintal versus Masoretic chronology in Genesis 5 and 11. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on creationism, ed. R. L. Ivey, Jr., pp. 417–430. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.

Zilhão, J. 2006. Neandertals and moderns mixed, and it matters. Evolutionary Anthropology 15:183–195. doi:10.1002/evan.20110.

by Anne Habermehl on January 13, 2010

A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-27   19:50:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: A K A Stone, yall (#38)

Weird. --- Do to really think that posting an extremely lengthy response can shut up an opposing viewpoint?

It won't work, in the long run:---- I've damn near stopped replying to one of the worse pedantic posters here, exactly because he can't control himself

It's a bad ploy, and if more posters start using it, goodbye forum..

tpaine  posted on  2016-11-27   20:52:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: tpaine (#39)

You're lazy.

A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-27   22:43:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 92) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com