Original History of Ancient America

Are the Indigenous Americans remants of the Phoenicians and the Israelites? A sufficient identity of the Northern native is now required, in order to establish the national distinction between the Aborigines of the two Americas.

**************

Excerpt:

In all civilized countries when the lex scripta fails to develope, or protect, the historical events and rights of a nation or of an individual, then the lex NON scripta is not only not rejected, but it is actually brought forward to establish, and support the customs and privileges of a by-gone day. This traditionary evidence, handed down from sire to son, is received in proof of "a foregone conclusion:" it gives an insight into the times, of which no written record is left for the investigation of Argus-eyed posterity; it carries us back to customs, civil, military, and religious, that otherwise might be lost to the archives of history. Admitting, therefore, this train of reasoning, we bring it to bear upon the present important subject;-important in the highest degree, for the time is now past when the Western Hemisphere is to be dated from the re-discovery by Columbus. His giant, but over-applauded name, like the ruins of Palenque, is but the lettering of a volume to indicate in the library of the universe that such a work was written-the work itself (i. e. the great continent) has yet to be read, and the historical authors identified; nor will the well-grounded supposition that the Welsh prince, Madoc, colonised in America two centuries before the Genoese; or that the Norwegian landed three centuries anterior to the Welsh, enable us even to unclasp the volume;-to accomplish this, and its translation, an historic Iliad must be cast over a period of more than two thousand annual changes, of nature's revolving but faithful time-glass! Granting then, that when the lex scripta will not cover a subject, the lex NON scripta must be investigated to establish a position;-the first, then, will not apply to the Aborigines of the north, for it does not exist; the latter only, or the unwritten history of their race must be had recourse to, to prove their originality and identity; traceable back to time immemorial, from their present customs and traditions.

We think that it will instantly be admitted, that all religious ceremonies are the strongest proofs of the characteristics of a people or race, of which no written history exists; for there is something so indescribably sacred in the conscientious actions of man with the Supreme God, that none but the maniac-atheist could doubt, that those actions should be received as the living features of a nation, when seen to be recognised and acknowledged, with as much certainty of identity, as when a mother gazes upon her fondly-cherished child!

The customs forming the analogy between the Northern natives and the ancient Israelites, will now be reviewed with as much brevity as the subject will permit, in order to establish an essential point of the present theory-viz., the separation of the Aborigines into two distinct people. The reader, perhaps, will meet us at the threshold of argument by the question, "How can an Indian be of Israel?" We will answer this, and refute the misnomer before the analogies are investigated. The name Indian, as applied to the original inhabitants of either, or both the Americas, Canada, the islands in, or adjacent to, the Gulf of Mexico, has no authority founded upon truth. The name was given in error, and has been so continued from the time of the Genoese to the present day. Throughout this work no position will be advanced that cannot be defended. The wrongful appellation originated with Columbus; and for proof of the assertion the following is presented.

The shadow of the Earth upon the Moon during an eclipse, plainly testified that the planet upon which we live was round. The travels of Marco Paulo by land to the East Indies (about 1269), related that those lands stretched far towards the east. About two centuries after this, it occurred to Columbus, upon perusing those travels; but more especially from having obtained intelligence from the final conquest of the Canary islands in 1483; and information while resident in England (which circumstances will be investigated hereafter), that by a voyage towards the west-thus travelling, as it were, around the globe-he should meet the extremities of those lands; and as the discovery of a sea-passage to the East Indies was the great object of navigation in the fifteenth century, Columbus made the bold attempt (founded upon previous knowledge of migration), and discovered the island of St. Salvador and those adjacent, and thinking that he had reached the eastern extremity of the Indies according to his theory, he then named those isles the West Indies, because they were discovered by sailing west.

The discovery of the Continent followed during his third voyage, and believing all the land to be of the Indies, the inhabitants of the isles and of the mainland were, as a natural consequence, called by Columbus under one general appellation, viz., Indians. Subsequent geographical discoveries have proved the great error of the Genoese; but the name of Indian was given at that time, and it has been continued although at variance with the truth; and it has had a material effect in checking inquiry concerning the Aborigines, who having been called Indians, the name seemed at once to specify their origin: but, it would have been equally as just, if he had determined to sail for Britain, and an unforeseen gale having cast him upon the island of Sardinia, and then from believing that he had reached the intended object of his voyage, he should have called the latter inhabitants British. We, therefore, discard the name of Indian as applied to the natives of the Western continent (it will be retained in the Tragedy of "Tecumseh" for local purposes), and write of them as the Aborigines, until, as we advance in this History, they can be identified by a national name, founded upon facts and conclusions.