Did Uriah smith believe blacks and indians were subhuman?

The Amalgamation controversy didn’t stop with Ellen White. In addition to the false racist accusations hurled her way, Uriah Smith would also find himself in the center of this controversy.

From what we know, Ellen White never publicly clarified her Amalgamation statements, and as a result, Uriah Smith attempted to defend these statements in his book, The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, A Manifestation of Spiritual Gifts According to the Scripture. However, in trying to defend Ellen White's statements, it appears that Smith would further the controversy with a few statements of his own.

On pages 102-104, Uriah Smith made a few remarks that have caused many to suggest that Uriah Smith was actually confirming his belief that blacks and Indians were part human and part animal.

He would make two statements that would stand out the most:

1. “But does any one deny the general statement contained in the extract given above? They do not. If they did, they could easily be silenced by a reference to such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country.”
2. “Whatever race of men we may take, Bushmen, Hottentots, Patagonians, or any class of people, however low they may apparently be in the scale of humanity, their mental capabilities are in every instance the basis on which we are to work, and by which we determine whether they are subjects of moral government or not.”

These statements sound awful on their own merit. Without context, it clearly appears that Uriah Smith not only suggested that certain tribes of Africans and Indians were subhuman, but he also even appears to say this fact is undeniable!

What makes this look even worse is that the book containing these statements was supported by James and Ellen White. According to one source, “James and Ellen White took 2,000 copies of Smith's book with them to campmeetings that year." —Spectrum, June 12, 1982, p.14. [1]

Reading the accusations of Uriah Smith, one would question why anyone would support him. As an African American, I should be offended more than most, as his words are directly pointed at my ancestors thus indirectly at me.

However, we must judge Uriah Smith’s letter on its own merit. Regardless of what I may feel or what I believe he is saying, I decided to read Smith’s letter in full, without my own prejudice or supposition and I realized what Uriah Smith was actually trying to say. And it wasn’t until I read Uriah Smith’s defense of the Amalgamation subject from this perspective, that I concluded Smith’s comments were insensitive but not racist.

It’s human nature to apply our own perceptions to what we read, see, or hear. Our perceptions often lead us to interpret information from our own knowledge and experiences. The problem is that this will often lead us to false conclusions.

Whether we are reading historical books, articles, or even the Bible, we must always ensure time and place are used to build context; this is part of what we call hermeneutics. Individuals who reject any form of hermeneutics often walk away from the Scriptures believing that God endorsed polygamy or slavery. Without the context of time, place, language, and history, one would believe God creates evil or forces people to do bad things so He can punish them. In essence, whenever we read, we must take into account who is writing, who’s the audience, and what was happening in their society that may possibly shape the context of the writer’s thoughts. That being said, I now understand that most individuals who are critical of Uriah Smith’s letter on Amalgamation are guilty of one of the following miscues: 1) They have not read the article in full, or 2) they read the article but erroneously apply current western-societal norms to this mid-19th century document.

Regarding our Western societal norms, please understand that our society can be sensitive to any comments that may appear racially insensitive—especially if those remarks are coming from a white man. For example, if a white person were to say that black people commit more crimes than any other demographic, whether it’s factual or not, his or her words would typically be considered to be racially insensitive or racist altogether.

The reason I'm telling you this is because what you are about to see is that Uriah Smith's comments have very little to do with race; however, because of the history of slavery in this country, his reference to animals and black people in the same sentence automatically invoked claims of racism.

Like many of you, I was initially taken aback upon reading Smith's remarks on Amalgamation. But the issue lay in the fact that I was interpreting his words through the lenses of his critics, who selectively extracted small portions of his letter, shaping the context to suit their narrative. However, once I had the correct interpretation of Uriah Smith’s words, I realized his intention wasn't racial at all—it was spiritual. However, because of the history of slavery and racism in America, he should’ve been cognizant that his words were prone to be taken out of context—and that’s exactly what I’m about to show you is happening.

Below is Uriah Smith’s letter in full; however, I am going to add my own commentary to provide you with the proper context.

"The visions teach, says the objector, that the negro

race is not human. We deny it. They do not so teach."

Uriah Smith begins by refuting the exact thing that he is currently being accused of. He begins by saying that Ellen White’s vision of Amalgamation does NOT teach that blacks are subhuman. It is important to understand this fact as it is key to understanding the context in which Uriah Smith is writing this article. Nevertheless, you will see that Smith’s accusers will still charge him with this disgusting claim even though the underlying premise of this letter is to clear Ellen White of this very charge.

URIAH SMITH’S GIVES HIS DEFINITION OF AMALGAMATION.

The key to Uriah Smith’s letter lies in the below excerpt. There, you will see from his own pen how he defined Amalgamation. These next words are pivotal to the rest of this letter.

"Mark the language: “Since the flood there has been amalgamation of

man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless

varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.”

This view was given for the purpose of illustrating the 

DEEP CORRUPTION AND CRIME INTO WHICH THE RACE FELL,

even within a few years after the flood, that signal

manifestation of God’s wrath against HUMAN WICKEDNESS." 

Here, at the onset of this letter, Uriah Smith ensures that we know exactly how he’s interpreting Ellen White’s Amalgamation statements. We don’t need to speculate or assume what he means by Amalgamation, he is telling us that he believes Ellen White’s Amalgamation (the mixing of animal and man) vision was an illustration of the DEEP CORRUPTION AND CRIME that happened before the flood and continues after the flood.

Essentially, Uriah Smith is suggesting that just as the animal kingdom’s nature is to kill and devour one another without mercy or compassion, the Antediluvian race had become so degenerate and wicked that their human nature became enveloped or taken over by a carnal animalistic nature void of compassion.

If you believe Smith’s correlation of sinful wicked men to animalistic tendencies is unbiblical, I hope these following texts will open your eyes to this understanding:

The Psalmist says, “So foolish was I, and ignorant: I was as a BEAST before thee.” Psalms 73:22

“For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?" 1Corinthians 3:3

Carnal, according to the Thayers Greek Lexicon, means “having its seat in the ANIMAL NATURE or roused by the ANIMAL NATURE.” Thus, Uriah Smith’s view is that the Antediluvians had given themselves completely over to their carnal natures to the point that they SPIRITUALLY became an Amalgamation of man and beast. Thus, we should see that the intent of Uriah Smith’s Amalgamation definition was about the spiritual, not the racial.

Unfortunately, Ellen White never confirmed or denied Uriah Smith’s view, but now we can see why she didn’t need to. Even though I believe Ellen White wasn’t referring to crime and corruption, you are about to see that Uriah Smith’s overall premise was still correct—crime and corruption were just as rampant before the flood as they were after the flood.

Regardless of how you feel or what you’ve been taught, this definition of Amalgamation is the only definition that will govern the remainder of this letter. Unless there’s a clear alternate meaning defined in this letter, any other definition that we ascribe to Amalgamation is simply unwarranted.

URIAH SMITH ADDRESSES THE SUBHUMAN ALLEGATION.

Here, you will see that Uriah Smith not only rejects the suggestion that Amalgamation refers to some races as subhuman, but he takes it a step further by highlighting the fact that Ellen White’s statement refers to races of men and not races of subhuman men.

"There was amalgamation; and the effect is still visible in certain

races of men.” Mark, those excepting the animals upon whom the effects of

this work are visible, are called by the vision, “men.” Now we have ever

supposed that anybody that was called a man, was considered a human

being. The vision speaks of all these classes as races of men; yet in the

 face of this plain declaration, they foolishly assert that the

visions teach that some men are not human beings! "

We should also notice that Uriah Smith asserts that anyone who believes they are calling blacks subhuman is simply foolish.

THE MISINTERPRETATION OF URIAH SMITH’S LETTER BEGINS

Please notice that most of Uriah Smith’s accusers have little condemnation for the first half of this letter. It’s not until Uriah Smith’s next words, that we see the first iteration of him being excoriated by his detractors. Regardless of Uriah Smith using the first half of this letter to repeatedly reject the subhuman accusations, you will discover all his detractors immediately dismiss the first half of this letter as if it was never written.

"But does any one deny the general statement contained

in the extract given above? They do not."

Stop right there! This is where the train comes off the track. But in reality, the train hasn’t gone off the track, his detractors are all looking at the wrong train! What I want you to notice is that Uriah Smith’s question refers to two components: (1) The general statement, and (2) The extract. Now, let’s restate Smith’s question once more with these two components in mind: “Does any one deny the general statement contained in the extract given above?”

What you will soon come to understand is that everyone is conflating “the general statement” with “the extract.” Notice he says the general statement is contained IN the extract. What you must understand is that Uriah Smith EXTRACTED Ellen White’s quotes on Amalgamation and made her quotes the backbone of his letter. Uriah Smith’s commentary about crime and corruption is what he is referring to as the “general statement” contained in Ellen White’s extracted words. Thus, the “general statement” is Uriah Smith’s words, and the “extract” is Ellen White’s words.

Unfortunately, most detractors have mistakenly assumed that Uriah Smith’s “general statement” refers to Ellen White’s Amalgamation vision. It does NOT. Again the “general statement” refers to Uriah Smith’s commentary about Ellen White’s vision. However, because most of his accusers have not made this connection, we can now see why they are accusing Uriah Smith of racism with his next point.

“But does any one deny the general statement contained in

the extract given above? They do not. If they did, they could

easily be silenced by a reference to such CASES as the wild

Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of Hottentots, and perhaps

the Digger Indians of our own country.”

Now, any logical person would have to wonder why Uriah Smith, in a few paragraphs earlier, would classify anyone who believes blacks are subhuman as foolish, and then turn right around and suggest that black people and Indians are subhuman. Wouldn’t he be referring to himself as foolish by his own description?

The next logical question is—if Uriah Smith was actually suggesting that blacks were subhuman, then why would he ask, “does any one deny” that? Not only did his accusers deny that, but I’m quite certain blacks and Indians above all others would’ve denied it as well.

We must not forget that the whole premise of Uriah Smith’s letter is addressing those who accused Uriah Smith of racism and they were denying that blacks were subhuman, thus it’s illogical for Smith to ask does anyone deny this as the very letter he’s writing is proof that someone is denying it.

In order to understand the true meaning of Uriah Smith’s statement, we have to remember Uriah Smith defines Amalgamation as an illustration of crime and corruption. Thus, Uriah Smith is essentially asking if anyone can deny crime and corruption were still prevalent at that time. Then he replies, “they do not.” In other words, no one is going to deny that there is crime and corruption. Now it begins to make sense why Uriah Smith was saying Amalgamation is undeniable.

Next, Uriah Smith points to his proof of this existing crime and corruption when he suggests anyone could be silenced by “such CASES as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country.”

Uriah Smith was not focused on races as much as he was pointing to specific instances or cases where crime and corruption were occurring to such a degree that it would be impossible to deny that this was wickedness of the highest order.

In order to understand Uriah Smith's mindset, we must try to determine what information he would’ve been exposed to at that time. (This is part of hermeneutics).

After a little research, I found a few sources that give us a glimpse into how these groups were described in the 1800’s. It also provides us with possible context as to why Uriah Smith singled out these groups as proof of his crime and corruption theory. In a book called The Christian Review, we find a copy of a letter from a missionary who encountered the Bushmen of Africa. Notice how he described them:

"Their manner of life is extremely wretched, and disgusting. They delight to besmear their bodies with the fat of animals, mingled with ochre, and sometimes with grime. They are utter strangers to cleanliness, as they never wash their bodies, but suffer the dirt to accumulate, so that it will hang a considerable length from their elbows… They are total strangers to domestic happiness. The men have several wives; but conjugal affection is little known. They take no great care of their children, and never correct them except in a fit of rage, when they almost kill them by severe usage. In a quarrel between father and mother, or the several wives of a husband, the defeated party wreaks his or her vengeance on the child of the conqueror, which , in general, loses its life. Tame Hottentots seldom destroy their children, except in a fit of passion; but the Bushmen will kill their children without remorse, on various occasions; as when they are ill - shaped, when they are in want of food, when the father of a child has forsaken its mother, or when obliged to flee from the farmers, or others; in which case they will strangle them, smother them, cast them away in a desert, or bury them alive. There are instances of parents throwing their tender offspring to the hungry lion, who stands roaring before their cavern, refusing to depart till some peace - offering be made to him. In general, their children cease to be the objects of a mother's care as soon as they are able to crawl about the field." [2]

Regarding the Digger Indians, another source said, “Thus, to this day, the word "Indian" in Southern California has its sacred and profane connotations. In the flesh—in the areas where they still survive—Indians remain "Digger Indians," fabled in local folklore for their thievery, filth, and lechery.” [3]

Now we should have an idea why Uriah Smith pointed out these specific groups. Although crime was and continued to be rampant all over the world, Smith had taken into account Ellen White’s words that Amalgamation was a BASE crime. In essence, Uriah Smith couldn’t think of a more base crime than throwing one's child into the mouth of a hungry beast. He likely saw these groups as the epitome of crime and corruption, thus inspiring his assumption that they were proof of Amalgamation (crime and corruption).

Although my research wasn’t geared toward confirming the legitimacy of such reports, their accuracy is irrelevant due to the fact that if Uriah Smith believed them, then these types of reports are likely what influenced his view of who was committing the basest of crime and corruption.

Now that we have the correct context of Uriah Smith’s view, by inserting my own words into the original quote here’s how I believe his controversial statement can be restated:

“But does any one deny the general statement about the deep crime and corruption that I wrote with Ellen White’s quotation above? They do not. If anyone says that deep crime and corruption is a thing of the past, they could easily be silenced by a reference to such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, who throw their children to lions, some tribes of Hottentots, who also kill their children, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country, who are known for their thievery, filth, and lechery”

URIAH SMITH: NATURALISTS AGREE WITH ME

Next, we will see that Uriah Smith, in order to substantiate his views on the animalistic nature of those steeped in crime and corruption, reveals that even those who study organisms and environments affirm his theory.

“Moreover, naturalists affirm that the line of demarcation

between the human and animal races is LOST IN CONFUSION..

It is impossible, as they affirm, to tell just where the human

ends and the animal begins. Can we suppose that this was

ordained of God in the beginning? Rather HAS NOT SIN MARRED

THE BOUNDARIES of these two kingdoms?”

When Uriah Smith refers to this lost line of demarcation between man and animal, he is not talking about the African race or any other race. We know this because the naturalists, whom he is referring to, were speaking about humanity in general. Thus, Uriah Smith is simply declaring that the animal race [species] and the human race were both lost in confusion. In his closing statement, he again confirms that this is about sin and not race when he says, “HAS NOT SIN MARRED THE BOUNDARIES of these two kingdoms?”

URIAH SMITH AGAIN ADDRESSES HIS ACCUSERS

“But, says the objector, Paul says that “God hath made of

one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all face of the

earth,” and then they add, “Which shall we believe, Paul or

E. G. White?” You need not disbelieve E. G. White, in order

to believe Paul; for there is no contradiction between them.

Paul’s language will apply to all classes of men who have

any of the original Adamic blood in their veins; and that

there ARE ANY WHO HAVE NOT THIS, IS NOT TAUGHT BY

THE VISIONS, NOR CLAIMED BY ANY ONE.” 

Uriah Smith again appeals to his readers in a final effort to drive home the point that Amalgamation is not about race. Reading between the lines, we can see that Ellen White’s detractors were attempting to pit Paul’s view of race against what they believed Ellen White’s view was. Smith’s response to these allegations was to point out that Ellen White’s vision was not teaching that some races were subhuman and that Paul’s message was no different from Ellen White’s in this matter.

URIAH SMITH AND THE DISEASED BLOOD OF SINNERS

“But for this text to weigh anything in favor of the objector,

he must take the ground that God made every particle of

blood that exists in any human being. Is this so? Then God

made all the scrofulous, leprous,, or syphilitic blood that

courses in the WORST TRANSGRESSORS’S VEINS! From

any view which leads to such a blasphemous conclusion,

we prefer to be excused.”

Above, Uriah Smith continues his discourse by attempting to make the case that although every human is made by God, not every sinful part is of God. Also, please take notice that Uriah Smith refers to the transgressor's veins, not the veins of a particular race. We once again see that SIN is the issue, not race.

“But what has the ancient sin of amalgamation to do

with any race or people at the present time? Are they

in any way responsible, or to be held accountable for it?

Not at all. Has any one a right to try to use it to their

prejudice? By no means. THE FACT IS MENTIONED

SIMPLY TO SHOW HOW SOON MEN RELAPSED INTO

WICKEDNESS, AND TO WHAT DEGREE.” 

Once again, confirming his view of Amalgamation, Uriah Smith asks a rhetorical question. Here, he wants to make it clear that those who were guilty of Amalgamation at that present time, had no connection to the ancient sin of Amalgamation that occurred before the flood. In essence, he is again dissuading any potential prejudice that may come as a result of the Amalgamation statement by rejecting any suggestion that Amalgamation was genetically passed down from the Antediluvians in the form of specific races of men. He again tells us that the Amalgamation that occurred before the flood’s only connection to the Amalgamation seen in men after the flood, is through wickedness.

PHILANTHROPY TO PEOPLE OF ALL RACES

“But we are to take all races and peoples as we find them.

And those who manifest sufficient powers of mind to show

that they are moral and accountable beings, are of course

to be esteemed as objects of regard and philanthropic effort.

We are bound to labor, so far as in our power, for the

improvement of their mental, moral, and physical condition…” 

Uriah Smith expresses the necessity of philanthropy to all races who are moral and accountable.

LOW IN THE SCALE OF HUMANITY?

“Whatever race of men we may take, Bushmen,

Hottentots, Patagonians, or any class of people, however low

they may apparently be in the scale of humanity, their mental

capabilities are in every instance the basis on which we are to work, and

by which we determine whether they are subjects of moral government or not.” 

I believe Uriah Smith could’ve phrased his closing words a little more carefully. Knowing his detractors would pounce on any slimmer of a racial overtone, it's no surprise that his accusers believe the above statement solidifies his racist position when he says, “Whatever race of men we may take, Bushmen, Hottentots, Patagonians, or any class of people, however low they may apparently be in the scale of humanity…”

At the onset, this statement looks horrible. I honestly wish Uriah Smith would’ve phrased it better. But a closer look at this statement, we can see that he is not attempting to be racially insensitive, even though it may appear that way. Uriah Smith’s usage of “low” and “humanity” comes across as a clear reference to men who are barely human; however, we must remember that Uriah Smith’s definition of Amalgamation refers to animalistic tendencies to sin, not visual animalistic features of men. So when Smith refers to those who may be low in the scale of humanity, he is still referring to those whose carnal nature has nearly overtaken their human nature. He then ends the statement by referring to them as potential subjects of the moral government. Here, we must see that he refers to morality as the deciding factor, not their race. 

Uriah Smith is saying that if they think, or if they are told that a race or class is low in humanity’s scale as a result of Amalgamation (crime and corruption), they may not know for sure, however, they can determine if individuals are part of the moral government by the individual’s mind (mental capabilities), not his or her class or race. Knowing that many of these tribes knew nothing about Jesus and were morally uncivilized, Uriah Smith is reveals that their ability to accept Christ was not racial, but cerebral.

“Then what about all this ado over the charge, which is

itself false, that the visions teach that the negro is not

a human being? What does it amount to? It is simply an

 effort to create prejudice in the minds of the people,

unworthy any one who makes any pretensions to being

a Christian, or even a gentleman.”



Above, Uriah Smith closes his letter by telling his accusers that the charges are false and that the accusations are doing more damage than they realize as he asserts that these accusations are creating prejudice in the minds of people.

IN CONCLUSION

Hopefully, by now you can see that Uriah Smith believed Amalgamation was a spiritual issue, not a racial one. His definition of Amalgamation has always been about our carnal sinful natures that overtake our humanity. His whole premise is crime and corruption, not race and skin color. However, despite Uriah Smith’s countless efforts to reject any suggestion that Amalgamation was racial, his accusers continue to ignore multiple statements in this letter just so they can extract out-of-context statements to make their allegations true.

While I do believe Uriah Smith could’ve rephrased a few of his statements to avert them from being taken out of context, we can be assured that by looking at the full letter in its proper context, Uriah Smith’s defense of Ellen White was not an attempt to propagate racists views. Uriah Smith was not, as his accusers suggest, rejecting racism in one sentence and supporting it in the next. While I cannot speak to Uriah Smith’s heart, I can speak to his words on paper, and these words are confirmation for me that Uriah Smith was not a racist.

[1] http://www.truthorfables.com/Amalgamation.htm

[2] Gould, Kendall & Lincoln. The Christian Review vol 8. 1843, pp 309-310

[3] McWilliams, Carey. Southern California: an island on the land. United States: Gibbs Smith, 1973. p. 24