the father of Cush; though Cush reigned over Ethiopia, as Josephus says; he is not designated as the father of Phut. Would Moses give the Israelites and the world a clear designation of Ham, he points him out as the father of Canaan. Neither Scripture nor tradition give the least intimation of Canaan ever figuring; in any capacity save that of a criminal, for which he was disgraced by his brethren, and cursed of God.
(b.) A second indirect proof that Canaan is the guilty party, is the significant fact that he did not accompany his father and brethren to Africa. That he did not is one of the best established facts of history and tradition: so patent indeed is it, that none pretend to advocate it. The most bitter slaveocrat has been compelled to acknowledge it. We go out of the regular train of argument to say here that the impossibility of locating Canaan in Africa, in no little measure accounts for the strenuous determination which the same slaveocrats have ever made to fix the crime on Ham; aye, it accounts for the ready acquiescence which many good men gave to the unjust imputation. Each of these classes looked upon the suffering negro; the conscience of the one upbraided him, and he would fain satisfy it by
