From these, and the whole of the preceding observations on the subject, we may conclude, that as all the inhabitants of the earth cannot be otherwise than the children of the same parents, and as the difference of their appearance must have of course proceeded from incidental causes, these causes are a combination of those qualities, which we call climate; that the blackness of the Africans is so far ingrafted in their constitution, in a course of many generations, that their children wholly inherit it, if brought up in the same spot, but that it is not so absolutely interwoven in their nature, that it cannot be removed, if they are born and settled in another; that Noah and his sons were probably of an olive complexion; that those of their descendants, who went farther to the south, became of a deeper olive or copper; while those, who went still farther, became of a deeper copper or black; that those, on the other hand, who travelled farther to the north, became less olive or brown, while those who went still farther than the former, became less brown or white; and that if any man were to point out any one of the colours which prevails in the human complexion, as likely to furnish an argument, that the people of such a complexion were of a different species from the rest, it is probable that his own descendants, if removed to the climate to which this complexion is peculiar, would, in the course of a few generations, degenerate into the same colour.

Having now replied to the argument, “that the Africans are an inferiour link of the chain of nature,” as far as it depended on their capacity and colour, we shall now only take notice of an expression, which the receivers before-mentioned are pleased to make use of, “that they are made for slavery.”

Had the Africans been made for slavery, or to become the property of any society of men, it is clear, from the observations that have been made in the second part of this Essay, that they must have been created devoid of reason:  but this is contrary to fact.  It is clear also, that there must have been, many and evident signs of the inferiority of their nature, and that this society of men must have had a natural right to their dominion:  but this is equally false.  No such signs of inferiority are to be found in the one, and the right to dominion in the other is incidental:  for in what volume of nature or religion is it written, that one society of men should breed slaves for the benefit, of another?  Nor is it less evident that they would have wanted many of those qualities which they have, and which brutes have not:  they would have wanted that spirit of liberty, that sense of ignominy and shame[096], which so frequently drives them to the horrid extremity of finishing their own existence.  Nor would they have been endowed with a contemplative power; for such a power