The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Robert S. Griffin Archive
"What If?" Thinking: Imagining Alternative Histories as a Way to Know
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I’ve found it useful to engage in a “What if?” thought exercise. The idea is to imagine what it would be like now if what happened in the past had happened in some other way, to envision an alternative history and see what it implies. I find it heuristic to do: it makes what has gone on in the past, and what’s going on now, and what could and should go on in the future, clearer; it puts things in better perspective. In this context, I’m dealing with public, or collective, history, the kinds of events and ideas and people that historians and other social scientists write about, but this thought technique can also be employed with private, personal matters. For example, I have been reflecting on what my life might have been like if at age thirteen I had chucked my all-consuming organized sport interest—playing on the teams and attending to the exploits of college and pro athletes—and focused instead on developing my mind.

Philip Roth
Philip Roth

I’ll use a 2004 novel by the highly honored Philip Roth (1933–2018), The Plot Against America, to illustrate what I’m referring to by public What if? thinking.[1]Philip Roth, The Plot Against America (Houghton Mifflin, 2004). Roth imagined what it would have been like for Jews in the U.S., including his own family—the book is written from fictional character Philip Roth’s perspective—if aviator hero Charles Lindbergh had been elected president in 1940 defeating Franklin Roosevelt.

In the novel, as he did in real life, Lindbergh speaks out against U.S. intervention in the war then raging in Europe and criticizes the “Jewish race” for promoting it to serve its interest in destroying Germany. Lindbergh wins in a landslide as the Republican candidate with the slogan “Vote for Lindbergh or vote for war.”

Once in office, Lindbergh signs a treaty with Germany agreeing not to interfere with that country’s expansion in Europe and a similar treaty with Japan with reference to its expansion in Asia. Lindbergh’s heretofore concealed anti-Semitism comes out in the open. A new government program, the Office of American Absorption (OAA), sends Jews, including Philip’s older brother, to live with families in the Midwest and South to “Americanize” them. The brother comes to view his family contemptuously as “ghetto Jews.” In time, entire Jewish families are uprooted and relocated. Prominent Jewish radio personality Walter Winchell criticizes the Lindbergh administration’s actions and is fired by his sponsors and then murdered.[2]I wrote an article about Winchell. See, “World War II and the Walters (Lippmann and Winchell)” The Occidental Observer, posted October 27, 2017.

When returning to Washington after delivering a speech, Lindbergh’s plane goes missing and German State Radio provides evidence that it is part of a Jewish plot to take control of the U.S. government. Jewish public figures including Henry Morgenthau Jr. and Herbert Lehman are arrested.

These events unleash anti-Semitic hatred throughout America and wide-spread anti-Semitic rioting ensues. Close to home, the mother of a Roth family friend is robbed and beaten by Ku Klux Klan members who then kill her by setting fire to her car with her in it. And so on; you get the idea.

The New York Times review of The Plot Against America called it “a terrific political novel” and “creepily plausible.” It won the Society of American Historians’ James Fennimore Cooper Prize for Best Historical Fiction and the Sidewise Award for Alternative History.

Roth’s novel and the idea of alternative history came to mind for me while reading a biography of Madison Grant (1865–1937), Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant by Jonathan Peter Spiro.[3]Jonathan Peter Spiro, Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant (University Press of New England, 2009). The book is Spiro’s doctoral dissertation and is as even-handed as can reasonably be expected if one expects to get a Ph.D in today’s highly politicized-to-the-left university. Spiro obviously was highly diligent researching his topic, and he thinks and writes clearly. He could have been more disciplined about what to leave out of the book—the term “too much information” came to mind—and I would have liked more story-telling flair; I felt as if I were reading, well, a doctoral dissertation. But the book was worth my time, and it prompted this writing. Take this as a qualified recommendation to check it out, probably at a university library. It’s expensive at Amazon.

ORDER IT NOW

Madison Grant was a Yale-educated, independently wealthy, American patrician. He had a law degree, but he never practiced law or pursued any conventional career. The best label I can think of for him is republican (with a small “r”) citizen, rather like the Founders were; Washington and Jefferson didn’t see themselves as career politicians like, say, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, but rather as citizens of the republic.

Madison Grant as a young man
Madison Grant as a young man

Madison was tirelessly active in conservation efforts and a proponent of what was called scientific racism. Reading along in the Spiro book, I couldn’t keep up with all the organizations he started or participated in to promote his causes, which was particularly admirable because, though he didn’t announce it, he was crippled with arthritis. He is best known for founding the Bronx Zoo; his conservation work, including saving the redwoods in California; and, in 1916, authoring the book The Passing of the Great Race.[4]Published by Charles Scribner Sons. The great race referred to is the White race, or more particularly northern European-heritage Whites Grant called Nordics.

Grant was based in New York City and hobnobbed with everybody who was anybody, most notably Teddy Roosevelt. As I got into the Spiro book, I became intrigued about Grant’s personal life —who he was, what he was like, how he lived —but I got next to nothing about that. Spiro noted that the usual personal sources historians rely on—letters, diaries, recollections, etc.—were very sparse with Grant. While he was well known in his time, he was guarded about his personal life and tended to stay behind the scenes. Grant never married and by his pictures looked to be a bit of a dandy. I wondered if was gay and wanted to keep that quiet. I flashed on Bayard Rustin, the gay black civil rights activist from the ‘60s, who also was well known but at the same time unknown, both prominent and hidden. Just a thought for what it’s worth

What I’ll do for the rest of this writing is use Grant to represent a perspective on who Whites are and what they ought to be, and on what America is and ought to be. To that, I’ll add an account of a failed Civil War-era proposal by Abraham Lincoln to repatriate freed slaves to Africa or Central America. Then some rhetorical What if? questions that come to my mind. All of this is to set up some What if? reflection for you to do that I hope will be of worth to you.

* * *

Drawing on The Passing of the Great Race and Spiro’s biography, I see three main ideas capturing the essence of Madison Grant’s outlook: a focus on race with the contention that Whites are the most admirable one; Nordics as an endangered species; and the affirmation that the U.S. is a Nordic nation and should stay that way.

Focus on race, Whites the most admirable. Grant offered that to make sense of human history it is best to look at things through a racial lens. It’s race that makes the whole thing go, as it were. He wasn’t an egalitarian; he viewed races as hierarchically ordered. In today’s parlance, Grant would be labeled a White supremacist, or more particularly. a Nordic supremacist. He deemed Nordics to be the best of the best: explorers, adventurers, aristocrats, artists, poets, philosophers, original thinkers, creators, organizers, civilization builders. His big qualifier: Nordics are all that if they aren’t duped and maneuvered into being less than they are.

From the Spiro book:

Whereas other historians have looked at the past and seen everything from nations clashing to genders attaining consciousness, Grant’s gaze penetrates beneath those surface irruptions to perceive that the history of mankind is actually a tale of the evolution, migration, and confrontation of races. Thus, for example, he explains that the empire of Alexander crumbled when the pure Macedonian blood mixed with Asiatic blood; he shows that the division of Roman society into patricians and plebeians was actually a manifestation of the racial conflict between Nordics and Mediterraneans; he demonstrates that the long decline of the empire of Spain was caused by the progressive dilution of the germ plasm of the Gothic race; and so forth. Indeed, the more Grant contemplates the longue durée, the clearer he sees that the lesson is always the same, namely, that race is everything. . . . The evolutionary explanation for [Nordic’s] splendor is [the harsh] climatic conditions that produced a strong, virile, and self-contained race. Grant invests his masterful Nordics with overwhelming masculine attributes. Other traits that are peculiarly Nordic are loyalty, chivalry, and veracity, as well as a love of efficiency. The Nordics are inherently individualistic, self-reliant, and jealous of their personal freedom. Nordics excel in literature and in scientific research. “In fact,” declares Grant, “the amount of Nordic blood in each nation is a fair measure of its standing in civilization.”[5]Spiro, pp. 145-149.

Nordics are an endangered species. Grant was trained as a lawyer, but at heart he was a zoologist. To him, human beings were animals in a habitat. While he saw the physical make-up of races as the prime determining factor in what the human animal is like, he didn’t discount the impact of environmental conditions. The human environment—habitat—includes social and cultural as well as economic and political conditions. Grant saw Nordics as a species in danger that needed to be protected just as do elks and caribou. In his time, he saw them being overrun and outbred and submerged by immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. He saw Nordics adopting what he viewed as base desires, passions, and behaviors and becoming less dignified and honorable.

Grant worried about the economic reality and urbanization in his time. Spiro:

In North America, the habitat to which they are well acclimated, the Nordics are passing from the scene. In colonial times, the environment that confronted the settlers was an untamed continent, and survival entailed clearing the forests and fighting the Indians—tasks for which Nordics were eminently suited. But the United States has changed from an agricultural to manufacturing society, and the type of man that flourished in the fields is not the type that thrives in the factory. The truth is that dark, little immigrants can operate a machine and navigate a sweatshop and prevail in a ghetto better than the Nordic blond, who needs exercise and air. Grant is forced to admit that from the point of view of race, the environment of his homeland is leading to the survival of the unfit.[6]Spiro, p. 153.

Politically, Grant feared Nordics losing their freedom and being dominated and exploited within a corrupt and authoritarian system controlled by a ruling class hostile to them and their interests.

It wasn’t so much that Grant contemplated the literal extinction of Nordics. More, it was akin to the majestic wolf becoming a tamed, domesticated house pet, rolling over on command and wagging its tail in hopes of being petted and tossed a table scrap. Metaphorically, that is what will mark the passing of the great race.

America is a Nordic nation and should stay one. According to T he Passing of the Great Race, the Founding Fathers of the United States were Nordic. They created a political system—a constitutional republic—suited to Nordic people, who flourished under an arrangement rooted in the values, and virtues, of personal freedom and responsibility. America offered the opportunity and challenge to make something worthwhile out of one’s life free from government dictates. While this political arrangement served early America, it wasn’t to be equated with America. America was a racial stock of people, Nordics.

That changed. Spiro:

[According to Grant,] Nordic blood was kept pure in the New World because the settlers had a strongly developed sense of race consciousness. And then, in a fit of humanitarian madness, the old stock threw it all away. The Civil War put a severe, perhaps fatal, check to the development and expansion of this splendid type. The reasons were threefold. First, the rise of sentimentalism during the antislavery agitation proved inimical to Nordic racial consciousness and weakened taboos against miscegenation. Second, the war itself, like all wars, was dysgenic; it destroyed great numbers of the best breeding stock on both sides [625,000 deaths, one out of four young Southern men]. And third, the prosperity that followed the war attracted hordes of immigrants of inferior racial value. . . . Grant understands that factory owners have a vested interest in encouraging the New Immigration, but is dumbfounded by the naïve sentimentalists who actually welcome the influx of social discards and provide them all manner of charitable assistance.[7]Spiro, p. 150.

America, contends Grant, is becoming someone else’s place, not Nordics’ place; accommodative to others’ ways and needs, not Nordics’ ways and needs. America is no longer us. That has to end.

* * *

This writing is about perspectives not specific proposals, but briefly, a couple of examples from the 1920s that reflect a Grantian outlook.

Immigration control. The Immigration Act of 1924 established immigration quotas based on the composition of the U.S. population in 1890 and had the effect of greatly reducing immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe, which especially affected the entry of Italians, Greeks, Poles, Slavs, and Jews. President Calvin Coolidge was quoted as saying, “I am convinced that our present economic and social conditions warrant a limit on those to be admitted.” In an article entitled “Whose Country is This?” Coolidge reflected the White racial consciousness of the time:

There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. Quality of mind and body suggest that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.[8]See my article, “Where is Calvin Coolidge When We Need Him?” The Occidental Observer, posted March 30, 2019.

The Eugenics movement. Sir Francis Galton (1822–1911) coined the term “eugenics” to describe improving the human race through controlled breeding. The eugenics movement was very prominent in ’20s America and involving prominent establishment figures in addition to Grant, such as Margaret Sanger, Theodore Roosevelt, and John Harvey Kellogg.

Spiro:

Eugenics harmonized with Grant’s concurrent development of wildlife management. There was no duality in his life, no conflict between this espousal of conservation restriction and his preaching on behalf of eugenics and immigration restriction .[9]Spiro, p. 136.

Grant was instrumental in forming the Eugenics Committee of the United States. Its advisory committee declared its mission to be “protecting America against indiscriminate immigration, criminal degenerates, and race suicide.” Among its activities were promoting miscegenation laws, the sterilization of defectives, and birth control.

* * *

Needless to say, if Madison Grant were alive today, he wouldn’t be getting any presidential medals of the sort bestowed on Philip Roth or giving any commencement day speeches. His outlook and activities are alien, if not downright scary, to modern sensibilities. He was influential for a time, but his ideas didn‘t win the day. He’s been dropped down the memory hole of history. A lot of things account for that, including Adolf Hitler declaring that The Passing of the Great Race was his favorite book; that was an endorsement Grant didn’t need. But the story of Grant’s ultimate disfavor can’t be told without reference to the number one “anti-Grant” of them all, Franz Boas.

Franz Boas
Franz Boas

Franz Boas (1858–1942) was a German-born professor at Columbia University for forty years. He has been called the father of American anthropology. His many graduate students became faculty members in universities throughout the U.S. and spread his gospel to untold numbers of students, and they controlled the discourse in scholarly journals and dominated the professional association in that field. Arguably, Boas was the most influential academic in the social sciences ever.

Spiro:

Boas was the antithesis of Madison Grant. Whereas Grant was the scion of an aristocratic American family and displayed all the attitudes and privileges implied in that heritage, Boas was the product of an upper middle-class German household in which, as he put it, “the ideals of the revolution of 1848 were a living force.” His progressive Jewish parents raised him with a firm belief in the dignity of the individual and the equipotentiality of all humans. Boas rejected Grant’s division of mankind into biologically distinct and hierarchical subspecies. He challenged not only the superiority but the very existence of the Nordic race. He denied that there was any correlation between the physical characteristics of a population and its mental and moral traits. The latter, he asserted, were created by the culture in which an individual was raised, not his germ plasm. On a theoretical level the debate between the Grantians and the Boasians pitted the defenders of heredity against the proponents of environment. But for all that, it was difficult not to notice that at heart it was a confrontation between the ethos of native Protestants and the zeitgeist of immigrant Jews.10

Long story short, Boas won the battle.

* * *

As I was reading the Spiro book, I free-associated to something I remember reading years ago writing a review of a book on Abraham Lincoln. It was to the effect that Lincoln favored repatriation of the freed slaves. I took a break from reading about Grant to checking it out online.

An article I found said that there is evidence that Lincoln hoped freed slaves would return to Africa or emigrate to Central America.[11]D.L. Chandler, “President Lincoln Urged Freedmen to Return to Africa on This Day in 1862” NewsOne, posted August 14, 2013. In 1862, he met with a delegation of freedmen to lay out his plan. While at the time, Liberia was the destination for many freed Blacks, Lincoln thought that going south made more practical sense. He suggested that, with the help of government funds, freed slaves relocate and colonize Central America, noting that its climate was closer to their “native lands.” He told the delegates:

Your race is suffering in my judgment the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoys. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best.

You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason why we should be separated.

The article I read said the members of the delegation didn’t take to Lincoln’s proposal.

* * *

Now to What if? Let’s assume an alternative history. The U.S. is a racially conscious White country with Madison Grant’s mindset, not Franz Boas’s. Blacks bought Lincoln’s idea and colonized Central America; almost none are in the U.S. now. What would things have been like in this country and what would they be like now? What would Americans have been like and what would they be like now, including you and me? And where does this speculation lead —what do we do collectively, what do you and I do individually?

I planned on doing some heavy duty pondering about all this to put in this section, but that didn’t happen. Three questions came up, and I really didn’t work with them much at all.

The three:

Would 425,000 have died? 425,000 young Americans died in World War II. It wasn’t pleasant to do, but I tried to imagine 425, 000 bodies in a huge pile. I bet Grant wouldn’t have been big on crossing the Atlantic and slaughtering Germans and blowing things up. What if we had stayed out of it, let Germany and the Soviets fight it out in Europe, and left Japan alone with their oil and everything?

Would I have written that article on Kyle Rittenhouse? The past couple of weeks, I wrote about the trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin. And before that, I wrote about the killing of a black teenager by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri and the trial of Derek Chauvin in the death of George Floyd.

Would Charlie would have felt forced to move? I grew up in Saint Paul, Minnesota and went to grade school and high school with my close friend Charlie in the West End part of the city. I left the area after grad school and have stayed in touch with Charlie over the years. He and his wife had a nice home there, which I visited when I came back to town to visit my brother. The demographics of Saint Paul have changed drastically, and as it’s turned out, diversity has had its downsides for the West End—gangs, crime, clutter, violent protests, and racial animosity toward Whites like Charlie (“Racist!”). Carjackings have gotten especially prevalent recently and Charlie has been looking around every time he got in his car. It came to the point where Saint Paul wasn’t Charlie’s place anymore and this year he and his wife sold their home and moved to Stillwater, Minnesota, a small town 25 miles away. Charlie reports that the move has worked out well. He sent this picture he took during one of his daily walks and it looked good to me. The thought came to me that maybe for Whites who can manage it, it’d be good to do what Charlie did—pack up and leave. Apart from getting away from the fussing and fighting, harking back to Grant, perhaps rural and small-town life best suits Whites’ nature.

What did I do about any of that? I wrote this up, but mostly I responded to my reflections such as they were with “I’m tired of this stuff.” I suppose that’s why I cut the thinking off short. The most notable things I’ve done recently are stream a documentary on the late Swedish film director Ingmar Bergman and watch a movie he directed back in 1963.[12]

* * *

Back to you. So: The U.S. is a racially conscious White country that looks at things like Grant did rather than Boas. Blacks aren’t around. What are the implications of that in both the public realm and in your private life? What do we do? What do you do?

Endnotes

[1] Philip Roth, The Plot Against America (Houghton Mifflin, 2004).

[2] I wrote an article about Winchell. See, “World War II and the Walters (Lippmann and Winchell)” The Occidental Observer, posted October 27, 2017.

[3] Jonathan Peter Spiro, Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant (University Press of New England, 2009).

[4] Published by Charles Scribner Sons.

[5] Spiro, pp. 145-149.

[6] Spiro, p. 153.

[7] Spiro, p. 150.

[8] See my article, “Where is Calvin Coolidge When We Need Him?” The Occidental Observer, posted March 30, 2019.

[9] Spiro, p. 136.

[10] Spiro, pp. 297-298.

[11] D.L. Chandler, “President Lincoln Urged Freedmen to Return to Africa on This Day in 1862” NewsOne, posted August 14, 2013.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 11 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. I remember reading this book by Spiro (who’s a liberal Jew). Great book.
    It struck me that that Spiro couldn’t find ‘malice’ in Grant’s actions!
    .
    .
    .

    I wonder… how much of today’s White Americans are of undiluted “Nordic” stock?
    So, it seems Grant was RIGHT about the fact that America was getting TOO MUCH Italian, Greek, Spanish etc. immigration…

    P.S.: I’m NOT a “Nordic” at all.
    .
    .
    .

    But for all that, it was difficult not to notice that at heart it was a confrontation between the ethos of native Protestants and the zeitgeist of immigrant Jews.

    More scholarly evidence to corroborate Kevin MacDonald’s work.

  2. Philip Roth was an utterly disgusting human being and a mediocre writer at best. That he was lauded as some great American author may be the single best bit of proof of ethnic nepotism in the United States.

    That said his alternative history was just silly. An isolationist Republican from the Midwest winning the Solid South in 1940? Why not just have them elect Adolf Hitler himself President? It’d make just about as much sense.

    If he’d wanted to be a little bit plausible he’d have General George Van Horn Moseley run and win after FDR had a stroke a few years early or something. Moseley actually was the kind of hardcore racialist that Lindbergh always gets smeared as. After his years in Military Intelligence he knew who was behind Communism and treason in America and wasn’t shy about naming them.

    https://occidentaldissent.com/2010/01/05/general-moseley-and-the-jews/

    Yet he was also popular enough that he got quoted in the Congressional Record and the New York Times when he did. The bad guys actually feared he’d be “The Man on the White Horse” and oust the New Deal crime cartel. That didn’t happen because he got smeared to death by the press (of course). But he was much more of a contender for the title of Literally Hitler than poor Lindy.

    For more on Moseley as well as general background on subversive ethnics in interwar America and the brave few who fought a rearguard action against them, see also “The Jewish Threat: Anti-Semitic Politics of the US Army” by Joseph W. Bendersky. The author is a Jewish academic who mines the records for outrage but a lot of the documents he quotes from make very interesting reading for people with quite different viewpoints as well.

    • Replies: @Vinnie O
  3. lloyd says: • Website

    I knew a Dane when I was growing up. He was the laziest fellow I ever met despite his Nordic appearance. I would employ a Maori worker any time to him. I suppose that might make him an exception to the Nordic race. However, I also note all the Scandinavian nations are Socialist and don’t stand out really for anything now except Abba. In China, I used American text books that were school text books in America in the early 1960s. I noted the romantic and pioneering image of the Nordic immigrant workers that is reflected in this article. Donald Trump privately advocated Nordic immigrants rather than from the “shit hole” places. As Trump does not appear to have read a book in his life, beyond College, I suspect he was recalling his schooling. That is part of Trump’s nostalgic charm. Prior to socialism, the Scandinavian lands were famed for a few literary geniuses and for their Viking marauding. The Eugenists and German nationalists I suspect idealised them because they were swans in a barn yard of races.

  4. Anonymous[329] • Disclaimer says:

    Blacks or no, immigration or not, a race has no future with below replacement fertility. Poland for example has no blacks and very little non-white immigration and still has as little future as a white country as the US. As long as whites remain obssessed with money, careers, status and high consumption and individual freedom, as long as they regard owning a car a higher life priority than having at least a couple of children, they don’t have and don’t deserve any future.

  5. There certainly is suggestive evidence that Lincoln never wholly abandoned the idea of repatriation to Africa, for the reasons in the Chandler quote. I am almost certain that the meeting described was the one that took place in March 1863, when Lincoln invited a delegation of “colored ministers” to the White House (I read about it in a contemporary issue of the NY Evening Post). While the ministers’ reply was not mentioned, many “free colored men’s associations” had resolved, long before and during the war, not to be relocated. They uniformly argued that they deserved to remain in the land of their birth, and in any case Africa was a barbarous place populated by savages and lions and they wanted no part of it. In this context it’s worth mentioning that former American slaves who did emigrate to Liberia formed a caste system, quite meanly discriminating against the native people, to whom they considered themselves far superior.

    In Lincoln’s final speech, the one that so enraged one man in the audience, John Wilkes Booth, he floated the idea of giving the vote “to intelligent colored men” who had served in the U.S. Army, saying it was their due for their devotion to the union. But the politician/general Ben Butler had met with Lincoln in the White House that very morning and claimed that the President was open to a colonization scheme that would involve resettling black veterans in Panama, with the rest of the population to join them over time. Given Butler’s oily character, the veracity of this account remains controversial, yet recent investigative scholarship strongly suggests that Butler’s story appears more likely than not to be accurate.

    Relatively few in the antislavery movement were as concerned with the human rights of mere slaves as much as they feared the African presence in America, which they saw as dangerous and degrading to white people, corrupting their morals as well as diminishing their wages. Only the extremist abolitionist faction thought blacks worthy of political and social equality. You can’t help but wonder how Lincoln would be remembered today if he hadn’t been cut down by an assassin’s bullet and had to battle the uncompromising congressional radicals over the race issue. His successor Johnson tried to continue what he believed Lincoln’s policies to be and was excoriated by them for his trouble.

    • Replies: @Franz
  6. The only alternative history scenario that would’ve saved America would be that plantation owners weren’t so greedy and averse to hard-work themselves that they purchased slaves. Without slavery, and a policy of turning (((other-loyalty))) “people” away, America would be a Utopia.

  7. Hitmarck says:

    Reads like all Jews are intellectual ghetto jews, incapable of introspection.

  8. Vinnie O says:

    Gee, and I’d been fiddling with an Alternate History where FDR never becomes president…

    The obvious alternative in 1932 was John Nance Garner, better known as Cactus Jack. Cactus Jack prided himself on having NEVER made an “enemy” in politics. But when it became clear that it might take 100 pollings before he beat Roosevelt at the Convention, Cactus Jack dropped out, and Roosevelt won on the next ballot. Cactus Jack became FDR’s VP. But FDR was a Communist, and Jack was an American. America would have been a MUCH different country in 1939 if the USA had an AMERICAN president.

    The big issue is that FDR hated Germans, ALL Germans, as a people. And so FDR would have started a war against Germany even if Hitler dropped out of politics and entered a monastery. FDR’s entire plot to get the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor was based on the CHANCE that a war with Japan would result in a war with Germany, which is exactly what happened.

    Similarly, for 200 years English foreign policy had been based on STARTING a war with the ECONOMICALLY most powerful country in Europe. And after Hitler sorted out the German ECONOMY, Germany went to the top of England’s hit list. It became simply a matter of finding a “cause” for the new war.

    I can send you a list of authors and titles if you’re interested.

    Vince

  9. Vinnie O says:
    @John Regan

    You apparently picked different books on each stage of the journey. So I don’t understand ANY of your logic. Reading books about Jews who were not active in politics by 1940 ain’t gonna teach you anything useful about WW2.

    The closest I can come to understanding where you’re at is that in 1939 the Republic of Ireland was still a member of the British Commonwealth. When England declared war on German in 1939, EVERY member of the Commonwealth also declared war on Germany. EXCEPT Ireland, which remained neutral throughout the war.

    The Irish were confused. The paperwork clearly said that EACH member of the Commonwealth was to develop its OWN foreign policy. So they did, and Churchill was livid. He began planning an INVASION OF IRELAND (still in work in 1945..).

    Oh, similarly, among ALL of the governments in the world in 1945, the Republic of Ireland was the ONLY country that sent a formal “regrets” telegram to Berlin when it was announced that Hitler had died. Nothing personal. The Irish were new to the game, and the training manual said that was what a Government DID when a foreign national leader died. All so confusing for a poor little country like Ireland.

  10. Franz says:
    @Observator

    Lincoln was an obsessive on the subject. This is a book by a black author, Lerone Bennet, Forced into glory : Abraham Lincoln’s white dream. It literally brims with Lincoln’s insistence that blacks and whites were not miscible and that continued association with each other would destroy both.

    https://archive.org/details/forcedintoglorya2000benn

    I have the print edition and the author, Mr Bennet, makes an inadvertent howler around the halfway mark, where he (seriously) rhetorically asks why Lincoln wanted a white nation in a world that was mostly black, brown, and yellow. Really, Abe, why?

    Lincoln was a lot of things, but he really should have repatriated himself to England when he was young. He appears to have had mental issues that have been noticed by many. The frightening part that (once again) the author of this book skips even though he provides quotes to support it is this: On the race separation issue, Lincoln’s own administration worked against him.

    To me, Bennet’s book is a long and interesting bit of proof that, as of 1861, it was already too late.

  11. Griffin quoting Spiro, summarizing Grant: “But the United States has changed from an agricultural to manufacturing society, and the type of man that flourished in the fields is not the type that thrives in the factory.”

    Certainly so, as I have been pointing out for going on three years now since I started commenting at Unz Review. Man’s system of technology is reshaping his genetics as an unintended consequence. A side effect of “Progress” will be the extinction of the human and the human culture that created it, and the rise of the anti-human. This process can be seen as an ongoing form of transhumanism. For example, thanks to “progress” in birth control techniques, man/woman relations have been radically altered. The fertility rate has plunged as it has turned out that, contrary to their idealized image, women actually don’t like being mothers all that much. These techniques have also enabled the removal of mothers from the home, and facilitated giving over the raising of children to public boob-hatcheries, further destroying generational connections to family and race. Another example: “Progress” in the understanding of the role hormones play in human development has led to the questioning of even the validity of sex differences. Men can become women, and women can become men, with devastating effect on culture and traditional understanding of sex roles.

    Where have all the heroes gone? Who is the modern Jefferson, or the modern Washington? Nobody is. “Progress” has moved past such people, as the environment it’s created no longer supports their creation.

    Griffin: “The article I read said the members of the [negro] delegation didn’t take to Lincoln’s proposal [that they voluntarily leave the US].

    Yes, and no doubt Lincoln was completely shocked by that. You see, he was actually quite a stupid man, and sincerely believed that all of the negroes were just going to volunteer to leave. It simply couldn’t have been the case that he was just feigning interest in this “colonization” scheme to appease certain voting blocks, and he by no means calculated that the vast majority of negroes would stay and vote Republican. No, not our “Honest Abe”! That kind of deceit would have been quite out of character.

    Griffin: “The Immigration Act of 1924 established immigration quotas based on the composition of the U.S. population in 1890 and had the effect of greatly reducing immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe, which especially affected the entry of Italians, Greeks, Poles, Slavs, and Jews.”

    Most who mention this Act (I have in mind Kevin MacDonald especially) depict it as a racial defense, a rare moment of white solidarity. But they always “forget” to tell you a couple of details about it. Namely:

    1) The Act cut immigration from Europe by more than 50%, reducing it from Germany, the UK, France, and Scandinavia, while increasing it from Africa and Asia.

    2) The Act authorized UNLIMITED (i.e., non-quota) immigration from the entire Western hemisphere, specifically including such garden spots as the Republic of Mexico, Brazil and Haiti.

    Speaking of alternate history, imagine the flood of wretched refuse from teeming shores that would be coming from those lands today if this Act had been kept in place! If so, the USA might already look like a northern counterpart of Brazil.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Robert S. Griffin Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Becker update V1.3.2
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
How America was neoconned into World War IV