The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 PodcastsJared Taylor Archive
What the Founders Really Thought About Race
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Signing the Declaration of Independence.

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

Since early colonial times, and until just a few decades ago, virtually all whites believed race was a fundamental aspect of individual and group identity. They believed people of different races had different temperaments and abilities, and built markedly different societies. They believed that only people of European stock could maintain a society in which they would wish to live, and they strongly opposed miscegenation. For more than 300 years, therefore, American policy reflected a consensus on race that was the very opposite of what prevails today.

Those who would impute egalitarianism to the Founders should recall that in 1776, the year of the Declaration, race slavery was already more than 150 years old in North America and was practiced throughout the New World, from Canada to Chile.[1]Davis, Inhuman Bondage, p. 142. In 1770, 40 percent of white households in Manhattan owned black slaves, and there were more slaves in the colony of New York than in Georgia.[2]Ibid, p. 128.
(Davis, Inhuman Bondage, p. 142.)
It was true that many of the Founders considered slavery a terrible injustice and hoped to abolish it, but they meant to expel the freed slaves from the United States, not to live with them in equality.

Thomas Jefferson’s views were typical of his generation. Despite what he wrote in the Declaration, he did not think blacks were equal to whites, noting that “in general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection.”[3]“Notes on the State of Virginia,” Jefferson. He hoped slavery would be abolished some day, but “when freed, he [the Negro] is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.”[4]Ibid.; quoted in Nash and Weiss, The Great Fear, p. 24.
(“Notes on the State of Virginia,” Jefferson.)
Jefferson also expected whites eventually to displace all of the Indians of the New World. The United States, he wrote, was to be “the nest from which all America, North and South, is to be peopled,”[5]Papers of Jefferson, Vol. IX, p. 218; quoted in Horsman, Race and Manifest Destiny, p. 86. and the hemisphere was to be entirely European: “. . . nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface.”[6]Lipscomb and Bergh, eds., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. X, p. 296; quoted in Horsman, Race and Manifest Destiny, p. 92.

Jefferson opposed miscegenation for a number of reasons, but one was his preference for the physical traits of whites. He wrote of their “flowing hair” and their “more elegant symmetry of form,” but emphasized the importance of color itself:

Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one [whites], preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immovable veil of black, which covers all the emotions of the other race?[7]“Notes on the State of Virginia,” Thomas Jefferson: Writings (New York: Library of America, 1984), pp. 264-65.

Like George Washington, Jefferson was a slave owner. In fact, nine of the first 11 Presidents owned slaves, the only exceptions being the two Adamses. Despite Jefferson’s hope for eventual abolition, he made no provision to free his slaves after his death.

Portrait of Thomas Jefferson by Edward Percy Moran, 1916.
Portrait of Thomas Jefferson by Edward Percy Moran, 1916.

James Madison agreed with Jefferson that the only solution to the race problem was to free the slaves and expel them: “To be consistent with existing and probably unalterable prejudices in the U.S. freed blacks ought to be permanently removed beyond the region occupied by or allotted to a white population.”[8]Letter from James Madison to Robert J. Evans, June 15, 1819, Writings 8:439-47. He proposed that the federal government buy up the entire slave population and transport it overseas. After two terms in office, he served as chief executive of the American Colonization Society, which was established to repatriate blacks.[9]Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, pp. 105-107.

Benjamin Franklin wrote little about race, but had a sense of racial loyalty that was typical of his time:

[T]he Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably [sic] very small . . . . I could wish their Numbers were increased . . . . But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

Franklin therefore opposed bringing more blacks to the United States: [W]hy increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America?”[10]Franklin, “Observations Concerning the Increase in Mankind,” (1751).

John Dickinson was a Delaware delegate to the constitutional convention and wrote so effectively in favor of independence that he is known as the “Penman of the Revolution.” As was common in his time, he believed that homogeneity, not diversity, was the new republic’s greatest strength:

Where was there ever a confederacy of republics united as these states are . . . or, in which the people were so drawn together by religion, blood, language, manners, and customs?[11]“Observations on the Constitution Proposed by the Federal Convention,” No. 8, by “Fabius” (John Dickinson).

Dickinson’s views were echoed in the second of The Federalist Papers, in which John Jay gave thanks that “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.”[12]Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers, p. 38.

After the Constitution was ratified in 1788, Americans had to decide who they would allow to become part of their new country. The very first citizenship law, passed in 1790 by the first United States Congress, specified that only “free white persons” could be naturalized,[13]Quoted in Brimelow, Alien Nation, p. xii. and immigration laws designed to keep the country overwhelmingly white were repealed only in 1965.

Alexander Hamilton was suspicious even of European immigrants, writing that “the influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.”[14]Quoted Grant and Davison, The Founders of the Republic on Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens, p. 52. John Quincy Adams explained to a German nobleman that if Europeans were to immigrate, “they must cast off the European skin, never to resume it.”[15]Quoted in Wattenberg and Buchanan, “Immigration.” Neither man would have countenanced immigration of non-whites.

Alexander Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton

Blacks, even if free, could not be citizens of the United States until ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. The question of their citizenship arose during the Missouri crisis of 1820 to 1821. The Missouri constitution barred the immigration of blacks, and some northern critics said that to prevent blacks who were citizens of other states from moving to Missouri deprived them of protection under the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution. Thee author of that clause, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, was still alive, and denied that he, or any other Framer, intended the clause to apply to blacks: “I perfectly knew that there did not then exist such a thing in the Union as a black or colored citizen, nor could I then have conceived it possible such a thing could have ever existed in it.”[16]Annals of Congress. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States. “History of Congress.” 42 vols. Washington, D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1834–56. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a...5.html

The Abolition Movement

Today, it is common to think of the antebellum North as united in the desire to free the slaves and to establish them as the social and political equals of whites. Again, this is a distorted view. First of all, slavery persisted in the North well into the post-Revolutionary period. It was not abolished in New York State until 1827, and it continued in Connecticut until 1848.[17]Davis, Inhuman Bondage, p. 128.

Nor was abolitionist sentiment even close to universal. Many Northerners opposed abolition because they feared it would lead to race mixing. The easiest way to stir up opposition to Northern abolitionists was to claim that what they were really promoting was intermarriage. Many abolitionists expressed strong disapproval of miscegenation, but the fact that speakers at abolitionist meetings addressed racially mixed audiences was sufficiently shocking to make any charge believable. There were no fewer than 165 anti-abolition riots in the North during the 1820s alone, almost all of them prompted by the fear that abolition would lead to intermarriage.[18]Lemire, “Miscegenation,” p. 90. This count was reported by the three leading anti-slavery newspapers of the period.

The 1830s saw further violence. On July 4, 1834, the American Anti-Slavery Society read its Declaration of Sentiments to a mixed-race audience in New York City. Rioters then broke up the meeting and went on a rampage that lasted 11 days. The National Guard managed to bring peace only after the society issued a “Disclaimer,” the first point of which was: “We entirely disclaim any desire to promote or encourage intermarriages between white and colored persons.”[19]Ibid., pp. 59, 83.
(Lemire, “Miscegenation,” p. 90. This count was reported by the three leading anti-slavery newspapers of the period.)

Philadelphia suffered a serious riot in 1838 after abolitionists, who had had trouble renting space to hold their meetings, built their own building. On May 17, the last day of a three-day dedication ceremony, several thousand people — many of high social standing — gathered at the hall and burned it down while the fire department stood by and did nothing.[20]Ibid., pp. 87-91.
(Lemire, “Miscegenation,” p. 90. This count was reported by the three leading anti-slavery newspapers of the period.)

Sentiment against blacks was so strong that many Northern whites supported abolition only if it was linked, as Jefferson and Madison had proposed, to plans to deport or “colonize” blacks. Most abolitionist activism therefore reflected a deep conviction that slavery was wrong, but not a desire to establish blacks as social and political equals. William Lloyd Garrison and Angelina and Sarah Grimké favored equal treatment for blacks in all respects, but theirs was very much a minority view. Henry Ward Beecher, brother of Harriet Beecher Stowe who wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin, expressed the majority view: “Do your duty first to the colored people here; educate them, Christianize them, and then colonize them.”[21]Quoted in Fredrickson, The Black Image in the White Mind, p. 115.

Sarah Grimké
Sarah Grimké

The American Colonization Society was only the best known of many organizations founded for the purpose of removing blacks from North America. At its inaugural meeting in 1816, Henry Clay described its purpose: to “rid our country of a useless and pernicious, if not dangerous portion of the population.”22 The following prominent Americans were not just members but served as officers of the society: James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen Douglas, William Seward, Francis Scott Key, Winfield Scott, John Marshall, and Roger Taney.[23]Ibid., p. 132.
(Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 133.)
James Monroe, another President who owned slaves, worked so tirelessly in the cause of “colonization” that the capital of Liberia is named Monrovia in recognition of his efforts.

Early Americans wrote their opposition to miscegenation into law. Between 1661 and 1725, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and all the southern colonies passed laws prohibiting interracial marriage and, in some cases, fornication.[24]Elise Lemire, “Miscegenation,” p. 57. Of the 50 states, no fewer than 44 had laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage at some point.[25]Ibid., p. 2.
(Elise Lemire, “Miscegenation,” p. 57.)
Many Northern whites were horrified to discover that some Southern slave owners had black concubines. When Bostonian Josiah Quincy wrote an account of his 1773 tour of South Carolina, he professed himself shocked to learn that a “gentleman” could have relations with a “negro or mulatto woman.”[26]Ibid., p. 11.
(Elise Lemire, “Miscegenation,” p. 57.)

Massachusetts prohibited miscegenation from 1705 to 1843, but repealed the ban only because most people thought it was unnecessary.[27]Legal opposition to miscegenation lasted many years. In 1967, when the Supreme Court finally ruled anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia, 16 states still had them on the books. The laws were only sporadically enforced, but state legislatures were unwilling to rescind them. The new law noted that inter-racial relations were “evidence of vicious feeling, bad taste, and personal degradation,” so were unlikely to be so common as to require prohibition.[28]Ibid., p. 139.
(Legal opposition to miscegenation lasted many years. In 1967, when the Supreme Court finally ruled anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia, 16 states still had them on the books. The laws were only sporadically enforced, but state legislatures were unwilling to rescind them.)

The northern “free-soil” movement of the 1840s is often described as friendly to blacks because it opposed the expansion of slavery into newly acquired territories. This is yet another misunderstanding. Pennsylvania Democrat David Wilmot started the movement when he introduced an amendment banning slavery from any territories acquired after the Mexican-American War. The “Wilmot Proviso” was certainly anti-slavery, but Wilmot was not an abolitionist. He did not object to slavery in the South; only to its spread into the Western territories. During the congressional debate, Wilmot asked:

whether that vast country, between the Rio Grande and the Pacific, shall be given up to the servile labor of the black, or be preserved for the free labor of the white man? . . . The negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent; let us keep what remains for ourselves, and for our children.

Wilmot called his amendment the “white man’s proviso.”[29]Earle, Jacksonian Antislavery and the Politics of Free Soil, 1824-1854, pp. 138-39.

David Wilmot
David Wilmot

The history of the franchise reflects a clear conception of the United States as a nation ruled by and for whites. Every state that entered the Union between 1819 and the Civil War denied blacks the vote. In 1855, blacks could vote only in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island, which together accounted for only four percent of the nation’s black population. The federal government prohibited free blacks from voting in the territories it controlled.[30]Keyssar, The Right to Vote, p. 55.

Several states that were established before the Civil War hoped to avoid race problems by remaining all white. The people of the Oregon Territory, for example, voted not to permit slavery, but voted in even greater numbers not to permit blacks in the state at all. In language that survived until 2002, Oregon’s 1857 constitution provided that “[n]o free negro, or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall come, reside, or be within this State, or hold any real estate.”[31]Peter Prengaman, “Oregon’s Racist Language Faces Vote,” Associated Press, Sept. 27, 2002.

Despite Charles Pinckney’s confirmation in 1821 that no black could be an American citizen, the question was taken up in the famous Dred Scott decision of 1857. The seven-to-two decision held that although they could be citizens of states, blacks were not citizens of the United States and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. Roger Taney, the chief justice who wrote the majority decision, noted that slavery arose out of an ancient American conviction about Negroes:

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.[32]Full text of the decision is available here: https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?na...ol=393

Abraham Lincoln lived well after the Founders, but many Americans believe “the Great Emancipator” finally brought what they believe to be Jefferson’s egalitarian vision to fruition.

Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln

They are mistaken.

Lincoln considered blacks to be — in his words — “a troublesome presence”[33]Ginsberg and Eichner, Troublesome Presence, p. ix in the United States. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates he said:

I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.[34]See Basler, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. II, pp. 235-236.

His opponent Stephen Douglas was even more outspoken (in what follows, audience responses are recorded by the Chicago Daily Times, a Democratic paper):

For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any form. [Cheers—Times] I believe that this government was made on the white basis. [‘Good,’—Times] I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining the citizenship to white men — men of European birth and European descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes and Indians, and other inferior races. [‘Good for you. Douglas forever,’—Times][35]Holzer, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates, pp. 54f.

Douglas, who was the more firmly anti-black of the two candidates, won the election.

Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery outside the South, but was not an abolitionist. He made war on the Confederacy only to preserve the Union, and said explicitly that he would have accepted Southern slavery in perpetuity if that would have kept the South from seceding.[36]See, for instance, Lincoln’s 1862 letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune: “[M]y paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery, If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” Available online: https://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/ema...y.html

Indeed, Lincoln supported what is known as the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, passed by Congress shortly before he took office, which forbade any attempt by Congress to amend the Constitution to give itself the power to “abolish or interfere” with slavery. The amendment therefore recognized that the federal government had no power over slavery where it already existed, and the amendment would have barred any future amendment to give the government that power. Outgoing President James Buchanan took the unusual step of signing the amendment, even though the President’s signature is not necessary under the Constitution.

Lincoln referred to the Corwin Amendment in his first inaugural address[37]For the full text of the address, see https://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html., adding that he had “no objection” to its ratification, and he sent copies of the text to all state governors.[38]Holzer, Lincoln President-Elect, p. 429. Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois ratified the amendment. If the country had not been distracted by war, it could well have become law, making it more difficult or even impossible to pass the 13th Amendment.

Lincoln’s Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation of September 22, 1862 was further proof of his priorities. It gave the Confederate states 100 days to lay down their arms, and threatened to emancipate only those slaves living in states still in “rebellion.” Lincoln always overestimated Unionist sentiment in the South, and genuinely believed that at least some of the Southern states would accept his offer of union in exchange for the preservation of slavery.[39]Escott, What Shall We Do With the Negro?, p. 55

A Thomas Nast illustration from Harper’s Weekly. The caption reads, “The emancipation of the Negroes, January, 1863 — the past and the future.”
A Thomas Nast illustration from Harper’s Weekly. The caption reads, “The emancipation of the Negroes, January, 1863 — the past and the future.”

As late as the Hampton Roads conference with Confederate representatives — this was in February 3, 1865, with the war almost won — Lincoln was still hinting that the South could keep its slaves if it made peace. He called emancipation strictly a war measure that would become “inoperative” if there were peace, and suggested that if the Confederate states rejoined the union, they could defeat the 13th Amendment, which had already been sent to the states for ratification. Lincoln appears to have been prepared to sacrifice the most basic interests of blacks if he thought that would stop the slaughter of white men.[40]Ibid., pp. 206-211.
(Escott, What Shall We Do With the Negro?, p. 55)
Throughout his presidency, Lincoln took the conventional view that if slaves were freed, they should be expatriated. Even in the midst of the war, he was making plans for colonization, and appointed Rev. James Mitchell to be Commissioner of Emigration, with instructions to find a place to which blacks could be sent.[41]Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 217.

On August 14th, 1862, Lincoln invited a group of free black leaders to the White House to tell them, “there is an unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us.” He urged them to lead others of their race to a colonization site in Central America.[42]Abraham Lincoln, “Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Colored Men,” quoted in Wilson Moses, Classical Black Nationalism, p. 211. Lincoln was the first president to invite a delegation of blacks to the White House — and he did so to ask them to leave the country. Later that year, in a message to Congress, he argued not just for voluntary colonization but for the forcible removal of free blacks.[43]Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 227.

A Clear Legacy

The record from colonial times through the end of the Civil War is therefore one of starkly inegalitarian views. The idea of colonizing blacks was eventually abandoned as too costly, but until the second half of the 20th century, it would be very hard to find a prominent American who spoke about race in today’s terms.

Blacks were at the center of early American thinking about race because of the vexed question of slavery and because blacks lived among whites. Indians, of course, had always been present, but were of less concern. They fought rearguard actions, but generally withdrew as whites settled the continent. When they did not withdraw, they were forced onto reservations. After the slaves were freed, Indians were legally more disadvantaged than blacks, since they were not considered citizens. In 1884, the Supreme Court officially determined that the 14th Amendment did not confer citizenship on Indians associated with tribes. They did not receive citizenship until an act of Congress in 1924.[44]Keyssar, The Right to Vote, p. 165. The traditional American view — Mark Twain called the Indian “a good, fair, desirable subject for extermination if ever there was one”45 — cannot be retroactively transformed into incipient egalitarianism and celebration of diversity.

Mark Twain
Mark Twain

There was similar disdain for Asians. State and federal laws excluded them from citizenship, and as late as 1914 the Supreme Court ruled that the states could deny naturalization to Asians.[46]Ichioka, The Issei, pp. 211ff. Nor was the urge to exclude Asians limited to conservatives. At the 1910 Socialist Party Congress, the Committee on Immigration called for the “unconditional exclusion” of Chinese and Japanese on the grounds that America already had enough problems with Negroes.[47]Ibid., pp. 293-6.
(Ichioka, The Issei, pp. 211ff.)

Samuel Gompers, the most famous labor leader in American history, fought to improve the lives of working people, but whites were his first priority:

It must be clear to every thinking man and woman that while there is hardly a single reason for the admission of Asiatics, there are hundreds of good and strong reasons for their absolute exclusion.”[48]Samuel Gompers & Heran Gutstadt, “Meat vs. Rice: American Manhood Against Asiatic Coolieism,” quoted in Joshi, Documents of American Prejudice, pp. 436-438.

The ban on Chinese immigration and naturalization continued until 1943, when Congress established a Chinese immigration quota — of 105 people a year.[49]Lutton, The Myth of Open Borders, p. 26.

Even if we restrict the field to American Presidents — a group notoriously disinclined to say anything controversial — we find that Jefferson’s and Lincoln’s thinking of race continued well into the modern era.

James Garfield wrote,

[I have] a strong feeling of repugnance when I think of the negro being made our political equal and I would be glad if they could be colonized, sent to heaven, or got rid of in any decent way.[50]Quoted in Frederickson, The Black Image in the White Mind, p. 185.

Theodore Roosevelt wrote in 1901 that he had “not been able to think out any solution to the terrible problem offered by the presence of the Negro on this continent.”[51]Quoted in Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 317 As for Indians, he once said, “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t inquire too closely into the health of the tenth.”[52]Theodore Roosevelt, The Winning of the West; quoted in Fikes, “Racist Quotes from Persons of Note, Part I,” p. 142.

Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt

William Howard Taft once told a group of black college students, “Your race is adapted to be a race of farmers, first, last, and for all times.”[53]Quoted in Fikes, “Racist Quotes from Persons of Note, Part I,” p. 142.

Woodrow Wilson was a confirmed segregationist, and refused to admit black students when he was president of Princeton. He enforced segregation in government offices[54]Letter to Oswald Garrison Villard, Nov. 11, 1913; quoted in Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 336. and favored exclusion of Asians: “We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race . . . . Oriental coolieism will give us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson.”[55]Quoted in Robert Fikes, “Racist Quotes From Persons of Note, Part II,” p. 138.

Warren Harding wanted the races separate: “Men of both races [black and white] may well stand uncompromisingly against every suggestion of social equality. This is not a question of social equality, but a question of recognizing a fundamental, eternal, inescapable difference. Racial amalgamation there cannot be.”[56]New York Times, October 27, 1921; quoted in Lewis H. Carlson & George Colburn, In Their Place, p. 94. In 1921, Vice President-elect Calvin Coolidge wrote in Good Housekeeping about the basis for sound immigration policy:

There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend . . . . Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.[57]Calvin Coolidge, “Whose Country is This?” Good Housekeeping, Feb. 1921, p. 13.

Harry Truman wrote: “I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America.” He also referred to the blacks on the White House staff as “an army of coons.”[58]Rick Hampson, “Private Letters Reveal Truman’s Racist Attitudes,” Washington Times, Oct. 25, 1991.

Harry Truman
Harry Truman

As recent a President as Dwight Eisenhower argued that although it might be necessary to grant blacks certain political rights, this did not mean social equality “or that a Negro should court my daughter.”[59]Quoted in Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 365.

Bibliography

Bailyn, Bernard ed. The Debate on the Constitution, Vol. 2 (New York: Library of America, 1993), p. 425.

Basler, Roy ed. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Boyd, Julian ed. Papers of Jefferson, Vol. IX, p. 218.

Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation. New York: Random House, 1995.

Carlson, Lewis H. and George Colburn. In Their Place: White America Defines Her Minorities. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1972.

Davis, David Brion. Inhuman Bondage. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Earle, Jonathan. Jacksonian Antislavery & the Politics of Free Soil, 1824-1854. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004.

Escott, Paul D. What Shall We Do With the Negro? Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009.

Fikes, Robert. “Racist Quotes from Persons of Note, Part I,” Journal of Ethnic Studies, Fall 1987.

. “Racist Quotes from Persons of Note, Part II,” Journal of Ethnic Studies, Spring 1988

Fredrickson, George M. The Black Image in the White Mind. New York: Harper & Row, 1971.

Ginsberg, Eli and Alfred Eichner. Troublesome Presence. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1993.

Grant, Madison and Charles Steward Davison. The Founders of the Republic on Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1928.

Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. The Federalist Papers. New York: Mentor Books, 1961.

Holzer, Harold ed. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates. New York: Harper Collins, 1993.

____. Lincoln President-Elect: Abraham Lincoln and the Great Secession Winter 1860-1861. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008.

Horsman, Reginald. Race and Manifest Destiny. New York: Harvard University Press, 1981.

Ichioka, Yuji. The Issei: The World of the First-Generation Japanese Immigrants 1885-1924. New York: The Free Press, 1988.

Jefferson, Thomas. “Notes on the State of Virginia,” Writings. New York: Library of America, 1984. https://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/ThomasJefferson.htm.

Joshi, S.T. ed. Documents of American Prejudice. New York: Basic Books, 1999.

Keyssar, Alexander. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. New York: Basic Books, 2000.

Lemire, Elise. “Miscegenation”: Making Race in America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.

Lipscomb, Andrew and Albert Bergh, eds. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Twenty volumes. Washington, D.C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1905.

Lutton, Wayne. The Myth of Open Borders. Monterey, VA: American Immigration Control Foundation, 1988.

Wilson Moses, ed. Classical Black Nationalism. New York: New York University Press, 1996.

Nash, Gary and Richard Weiss. The Great Fear. New York: Holt, Rinehard and Winston, 1970.

Weyl, Nathaniel and William Marina. American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1971

Labaree, Leonard W. ed. Papers of Benjamin Franklin. New Haven, CT: 1959. https://bc.barnard.columbia.edu/~lgordis/earlyAC/doc...ments/ observations.html

Taylor, Jared. White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century. Virginia: New Century Foundation, 2011.

Twain, Mark. “The Noble Red Man,” The Galaxy, Sept. 1870.

Wattenberg, Ben J. and Patrick J Buchanan. “Immigration: A Cause of the Clash of Civilization…or a Solution to It,” The American Enterprise, March 2002.
It is only with John Kennedy that we finally find a president whose conception of race begins to be acceptable by today’s standards.

Today’s egalitarians are therefore radical dissenters from traditional American thinking. A conception of America as a nation of people with common values, culture, and heritage is far more faithful to vision of the founders

Notes

[1] Davis, Inhuman Bondage, p. 142.

[2] Ibid, p. 128.

[3] “Notes on the State of Virginia,” Jefferson.

[4] Ibid.; quoted in Nash and Weiss, The Great Fear, p. 24.

[5] Papers of Jefferson, Vol. IX, p. 218; quoted in Horsman, Race and Manifest Destiny, p. 86.

[6] Lipscomb and Bergh, eds., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. X, p. 296; quoted in Horsman, Race and Manifest Destiny, p. 92.

[7] “Notes on the State of Virginia,” Thomas Jefferson: Writings (New York: Library of America, 1984), pp. 264-65.

[8] Letter from James Madison to Robert J. Evans, June 15, 1819, Writings 8:439-47.

[9] Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, pp. 105-107.

[10] Franklin, “Observations Concerning the Increase in Mankind,” (1751).

[11] “Observations on the Constitution Proposed by the Federal Convention,” No. 8, by “Fabius” (John Dickinson).

[12] Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers, p. 38.

[13] Quoted in Brimelow, Alien Nation, p. xii.

[14] Quoted Grant and Davison, The Founders of the Republic on Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens, p. 52.

[15] Quoted in Wattenberg and Buchanan, “Immigration.”

[16] Annals of Congress. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States. “History of Congress.” 42 vols. Washington, D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1834–56. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s15.html

[17] Davis, Inhuman Bondage, p. 128.

[18] Lemire, “Miscegenation,” p. 90. This count was reported by the three leading anti-slavery newspapers of the period.

[19] Ibid., pp. 59, 83.

[20] Ibid., pp. 87-91.

[21] Quoted in Fredrickson, The Black Image in the White Mind, p. 115.

[22] Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 133.

[23] Ibid., p. 132.

[24] Elise Lemire, “Miscegenation,” p. 57.

[25] Ibid., p. 2.

[26] Ibid., p. 11.

[27] Legal opposition to miscegenation lasted many years. In 1967, when the Supreme Court finally ruled anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia, 16 states still had them on the books. The laws were only sporadically enforced, but state legislatures were unwilling to rescind them.

[28] Ibid., p. 139.

[29] Earle, Jacksonian Antislavery and the Politics of Free Soil, 1824-1854, pp. 138-39.

[30] Keyssar, The Right to Vote, p. 55.

[31] Peter Prengaman, “Oregon’s Racist Language Faces Vote,” Associated Press, Sept. 27, 2002.

[32] Full text of the decision is available here: https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=60&invol=393

[33] Ginsberg and Eichner, Troublesome Presence, p. ix

[34] See Basler, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. II, pp. 235-236.

[35] Holzer, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates, pp. 54f.

[36] See, for instance, Lincoln’s 1862 letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune: “[M]y paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery, If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” Available online: https://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/emancipation/docs/lin_greeley.html

[37] For the full text of the address, see https://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html.

[38] Holzer, Lincoln President-Elect, p. 429.

[39] Escott, What Shall We Do With the Negro?, p. 55

[40] Ibid., pp. 206-211.

[41] Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 217.

[42] Abraham Lincoln, “Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Colored Men,” quoted in Wilson Moses, Classical Black Nationalism, p. 211.

[43] Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 227.

[44] Keyssar, The Right to Vote, p. 165.

[45] Mark Twain, “The Noble Red Man,” The Galaxy, Sept. 1870

[46] Ichioka, The Issei, pp. 211ff.

[47] Ibid., pp. 293-6.

[48] Samuel Gompers & Heran Gutstadt, “Meat vs. Rice: American Manhood Against Asiatic Coolieism,” quoted in Joshi, Documents of American Prejudice, pp. 436-438.

[49] Lutton, The Myth of Open Borders, p. 26.

[50] Quoted in Frederickson, The Black Image in the White Mind, p. 185.

[51] Quoted in Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 317

[52] Theodore Roosevelt, The Winning of the West; quoted in Fikes, “Racist Quotes from Persons of Note, Part I,” p. 142.

[53] Quoted in Fikes, “Racist Quotes from Persons of Note, Part I,” p. 142.

[54] Letter to Oswald Garrison Villard, Nov. 11, 1913; quoted in Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 336.

[55] Quoted in Robert Fikes, “Racist Quotes From Persons of Note, Part II,” p. 138.

[56] New York Times, October 27, 1921; quoted in Lewis H. Carlson & George Colburn, In Their Place, p. 94.

[57] Calvin Coolidge, “Whose Country is This?” Good Housekeeping, Feb. 1921, p. 13.

[58] Rick Hampson, “Private Letters Reveal Truman’s Racist Attitudes,” Washington Times, Oct. 25, 1991.

[59] Quoted in Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 365.

Bibliography

Bailyn, Bernard ed. The Debate on the Constitution, Vol. 2 (New York: Library of America, 1993), p. 425.

Basler, Roy ed. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Boyd, Julian ed. Papers of Jefferson, Vol. IX, p. 218.

Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation. New York: Random House, 1995.

Carlson, Lewis H. and George Colburn. In Their Place: White America Defines Her Minorities. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1972.

Davis, David Brion. Inhuman Bondage. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Earle, Jonathan. Jacksonian Antislavery & the Politics of Free Soil, 1824-1854. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004.

Escott, Paul D. What Shall We Do With the Negro? Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009.

Fikes, Robert. “Racist Quotes from Persons of Note, Part I,” Journal of Ethnic Studies, Fall 1987.

. “Racist Quotes from Persons of Note, Part II,” Journal of Ethnic Studies, Spring 1988

Fredrickson, George M. The Black Image in the White Mind. New York: Harper & Row, 1971.

Ginsberg, Eli and Alfred Eichner. Troublesome Presence. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1993.

Grant, Madison and Charles Steward Davison. The Founders of the Republic on Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1928.

Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. The Federalist Papers. New York: Mentor Books, 1961.

Holzer, Harold ed. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates. New York: Harper Collins, 1993.

____. Lincoln President-Elect: Abraham Lincoln and the Great Secession Winter 1860-1861. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008.

Horsman, Reginald. Race and Manifest Destiny. New York: Harvard University Press, 1981.

Ichioka, Yuji. The Issei: The World of the First-Generation Japanese Immigrants 1885-1924. New York: The Free Press, 1988.

Jefferson, Thomas. “Notes on the State of Virginia,” Writings. New York: Library of America, 1984. https://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/ThomasJefferson.htm.

Joshi, S.T. ed. Documents of American Prejudice. New York: Basic Books, 1999.

Keyssar, Alexander. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. New York: Basic Books, 2000.

Lemire, Elise. “Miscegenation”: Making Race in America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.

Lipscomb, Andrew and Albert Bergh, eds. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Twenty volumes. Washington, D.C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1905.

Lutton, Wayne. The Myth of Open Borders. Monterey, VA: American Immigration Control Foundation, 1988.

Wilson Moses, ed. Classical Black Nationalism. New York: New York University Press, 1996.

Nash, Gary and Richard Weiss. The Great Fear. New York: Holt, Rinehard and Winston, 1970.

Weyl, Nathaniel and William Marina. American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1971

Labaree, Leonard W. ed. Papers of Benjamin Franklin. New Haven, CT: 1959. https://bc.barnard.columbia.edu/~lgordis/earlyAC/documents/ observations.html

Taylor, Jared. White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century. Virginia: New Century Foundation, 2011.

Twain, Mark. “The Noble Red Man,” The Galaxy, Sept. 1870.

Wattenberg, Ben J. and Patrick J Buchanan. “Immigration: A Cause of the Clash of Civilization…or a Solution to It,” The American Enterprise, March 2002.

(Republished from American Renaissance by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 22 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. ‘What the Founders really thought about Jews’ intrigues me more, actually!

    It’s well-known George Washington befriended Jews, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gershom_Mendes_Seixas

    • Replies: @BuelahMan
  2. The founders would absolutely be disgusted at what we turned their sacrifices and vision into.

    You may have heard the (possibly apocryphal) quote from Ben Franklin that America was “A Republic, as long as you can keep it”. Well, we’ve lost control of the Republic by advancing the worst this country has to offer and pretending they are the most valuable.

  3. I could be polite and say this article is “biased”. It would be more accurate to say that it’s a package of lies designed to mislead. Take his statement that Jefferson freed no slaves. That’s just false. In his will he freed children of Sally Hemings, a quadroon who was his dead wife’s half sister and almost certainly his mistress. He was likely the father of those children.

    https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-a-brief-account/monticello-affirms-thomas-jefferson-fathered-children-with-sally-hemings/

    Then we have Taylor’s telling of Jefferson’s supposed horror of race mixing. LOL! If he thought it so horrible, why did he engage in it?

    He predictably mentions the American Colonization Society, but “forgets” to tell his readers that it was in the ACS Charter that any “colonization” of negroes was to be on a voluntary basis only. Needless to say, the idea that all the negroes were going to leave voluntarily always was a joke. Perhaps some American Christians were stupid enough to believe this would happen, since they also claim to believe absurdities such as corpses coming back to life, but intelligent people such as the first few American presidents must have always known it was a ludicrous hope.

    He also brings up the Naturalization Act of 1790, which allowed only whites to become naturalized citizens, without explaining that naturalization was only one way for people to become citizens. Plenty of non-whites were made citizens by treaty, for example in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, when the USA acquired lands from Mexico. Also, at the time the Constitution was being written, free negroes had already been allowed to become citizens in several of the 13 original states. Later Constitutional Amendments after the Civil War gave national citizenship and the vote to all of them.

    He repeats the Kevin MacDonald spin on the 1965 immigration reform, without telling his readers that the 1924 Act it rescinded allowed for unlimited immigration from anywhere in the Western hemisphere. Imagine, if that provision had remained in force, every negro in Haiti and Brazil would now be living in the USA!

    He quotes the influential Christian preacher Henry Ward Beecher in one of his speeches collected in the book Patriotic Addresses:

    Henry Ward Beecher, brother of Harriet Beecher Stowe who wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin, expressed the majority view: “Do your duty first to the colored people here; educate them, Christianize them, and then colonize them.”

    But he again leaves out a crucial detail, namely that HW Beecher too advocated only a voluntary departure of the negroes. Beecher goes on to say that to even think of forcing them out for the benefit of whites would be a sin! (LOL, gotta love these Christian loonies!) As ever, Taylor wants to leave his reader with the impression that what whites in early America were thinking about was forcible expulsion, when the exact opposite was true.

    All in all, the article is just typical Jared Taylor BS. Since he makes his living from his website, I can only surmise that he thinks telling his readers what they want to hear increases donations. Unfortunately, it also ensures that the real causes of white decline are never addressed, and real solutions never found.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    , @C.T.
    , @Curle
  4. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    If true, those are indeed critical omissions. Taylor’s piece thus gives the misleading impression that early American elites were more serious about finding lasting solutions to the black problem than was really the case. In reality, as much as they might have considered blacks problematic, they had better things to do with their time than seek lasting solutions; as long as blacks knew their place, that was good enough. And then the Jews came.

  5. BuelahMan says:
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    Quote from that jewish written link that they were “friends”.

    • Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht
  6. Anon[564] • Disclaimer says:

    The founders also had similar ideas concerning a certain Levantine Tribe of Wanderers. Their wise warnings were tragically not heeded

  7. Do “How the Jews really feel about goyim.”

    Consult the Talmud and other Jewish writings.

  8. C.T. says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    A 9,000-word blog entry (“American racial history timeline—Or—On Jared Taylor’s cherries”) has been posted as a reply to the above article, of which I’ll only quote the lead paragraph:

    If there is one racialist who can be considered a patriot in the traditional sense of the word, he is Jared Taylor. Unlike the traditional sense, I prefer to say Your race is your nation, which means that the history of Sweden or Germany should be as important to the white nationalist as the history of his home country.

    But Taylor cherry-picks historical facts that seem to put the history of the US (not of his race, his real nation) in a benign light. That’s why in yesterday’s article he said: ‘Today’s egalitarians are therefore radical dissenters from traditional American thinking’.

    The truth is that there have always been egalitarian fanatics in his country, as we shall see.

    If you don’t want to read all nine thousand words, read at least the paragraphs marked in red:

    https://chechar.wordpress.com/2022/02/22/american-racial-history-timeline/

  9. C.T.: “The truth is that there have always been egalitarian fanatics in his country, as we shall see. ”

    Certainly true.

    C.T.: “If you don’t want to read all nine thousand words, read at least the paragraphs marked in red:”

    Good work, except for one entry I spotted.

    1790-1800

    National campaign waged to racially cleanse America of blacks, Virginia in particular, which contains 40% of America’s black population. (Jordan, 542)

    This florid and overblown language could easily lead someone to think there was a “national campaign” to forcibly expel the negroes, or even an attempt made to exterminate them. Of course, that wasn’t the case. I’ve checked the text referenced, and Jordan is talking about the beginnings of the “colonization” movement. He agrees with me that it was a ridiculous idea from the start, riddled with contradictions and impracticalities. Accordingly, to describe it he uses such words as “utopian”, “preposterous”, and “fantasy”. Jordan confirms that neither forcible expulsion nor genocide were ever under serious consideration. No preparation was ever made to do either one, nor was there ever a “national campaign” to do so.

    Because Jared Taylor and others have spent so many years misleading people about this, I think it’s especially important to stress that “colonization” really was a joke. It amounted to nothing more than a vague hope that somehow the problem might solve itself; that all the negroes would volunteer to “go away” of their own accord. Laughable, pie-in-the-sky Christian thinking!

    • Replies: @C.T.
  10. neutral says:

    Race is the most important issue, but besides that had they seen that their constitution would be used to defend everything from abortion, homosexual marriage, sex changes for children, porn, etc, they would have been shouting “God save the king”.

  11. BuelahMan says:
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    I read your jewish link several times already. Please quote the line where Washington befriended jews.

    Looks to me that he said a few nice words in response to the jew writing him. He did not befriend anyone.

    But I’ll wait to see the quote when you put it here.

  12. Thanks for this informative and well researched piece. It seems to me that the fantasy that many Americans championed the human rights of slaves in the late antebellum era is part of the feel-good mythologizing of our history. As a rare book dealer one of my specialties over the decades has been slavery literature, both pro and con. It is truly eye opening to read today, given the political and social legends that have since grown around slavery. The antislavery movement actually began in the slaveholding states. Its motivation was fear, the stark terror of what Jefferson called “the alarum bell in the night” that would signal the slaveholder’s worst fear, “servile insurrection.” Whatever else they may have been, the slaveholders were not fools. They knew what they were doing was morally indefensible, nothing more than the legalized theft of their employees’ wages as well as literally their bodies, and that there would one day be bloody payback. So many of the absurd exaggerations in their literature in defense of “the peculiar institution” read today like the self-deceiving rants of very guilty consciences.

    Up in Yankeeland the shrillest voices against slavery were those of the prim descendants of the “first planters”, who clung to their forebears’ intolerant way of seeing everything in terms of good or evil. Their wokeness is drearily tiresome to read. Yet you can sense a certain jealousy in their endless lurid tales of the sexual exploitation of slave women and in the menacing yet thrillingly illicit sexuality of male slaves. Many Americans saw slaves, ironically, as icons of the simple humans freedoms the stifling conventions of their prudish faith denied them, to sing and dance and make love as they wanted (in their spare time at least); hence the enduring popularity of minstrel shows. A convincing argument has been made that Puritan descendants, so accustomed to seeing themselves as the moral conscience of the nation, created the antislavery movement primarily to reassert their influence in a radically changed Industrial Age America in which they had become utterly irrelevant.

    But the strongest and most popular argument against slavery, for those few who had an opinion, was that Africans were an alien people whose mere presence exerted a dangerous, corrupting influence on white America. They largely saw that the only practical solution was ethnic cleansing, on the scope of what was then ongoing against the indigenous people of the continent. Free blacks were the among the loudest opponents of the colonization idea, stating that this was the land of their birth, and they wanted no part of mother Africa, populated as it was by savage primitives and wild beasts. There is suggestive evidence that Lincoln never abandoned the plan of overseas colonization of all blacks to solve the crisis. He was after all a practical midwestern politician, not a smug New Englander reeking of self-proclaimed moral superiority. One wonders how his legacy would be remembered today, had he not been cut down by an assassin’s bullet, given the bloody combat he would have had to wage against the radical racialists in Congress who so crucified his successor.

    One could make the argument that the African presence was indeed, and through no fault of their own, the undoing of the original American experiment in self-government. A great civil war was fought not so much (at least initially) to end slavery but to suppress the undemocratic usurpation of power of a special interest lobby hell-bent on expanding slavery, despite the decision to the contrary expressed by the electorate. The experience dramatically revealed that the Founders’ concept of a strictly limited government had outlived its usefulness. The heart and soul of Lincoln’s revolution was that a central government too weak to preserve its own existence could not hope to preserve the liberties of its citizens, and was not worth preserving. A century later the carefully cultivated racist backlash to the long overdue civil rights legislation of the 1960s opened Washington to plunder by a new aristocracy of liars and thieves. Its oligarchs abducted Lincoln’s old party to complete the transition of our once-free government into its present incarnation, a tyranny of obscene wealth – not unlike the slave plantation system, now reborn to misuse Lincoln’s great engine of liberty to put chains on all of us.

  13. Observator: “But the strongest and most popular argument against slavery, for those few who had an opinion, was that Africans were an alien people whose mere presence exerted a dangerous, corrupting influence on white America. They largely saw that the only practical solution was ethnic cleansing, on the scope of what was then ongoing against the indigenous people of the continent.”

    Above, I mention the role Jared Taylor and “others” have played in misleading people with regard to colonization. Clearly, you are one of the “others” I’m talking about, since this comment of yours is complete bullshit. Name one organization, or even one individual white man of that day who advocated the extermination of the negro, and provide a cite. You can’t do it.

    Observator: “There is suggestive evidence that Lincoln never abandoned the plan of overseas colonization of all blacks to solve the crisis.”

    Suggestive to a fool like you, perhaps. But Lincoln obviously knew that all the negroes weren’t suddenly going to volunteer to leave. That’s why in his last public address before being assassinated, he called for them to be made citizens and given the vote. He obviously wanted them to stay and vote Republican!

  14. C.T. says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Oops! I just removed that passage from the blog post and added your previous comment in the comments section. Thanks.

    Christian piety (remember that Jared Taylor’s parents were Christian zealots who immigrated to Japan to preach the gospel to the Heathens there) certainly clouds and blinds the understanding of racialist conservatives to such an extent that their POV not only distorts, but inverts historical reality.

  15. northeast says:

    You pinpointed the last nominal American president. Ike. Kennedy was indeed the first of the egalitarians.

  16. Curle says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “ but “forgets” to tell his readers that it was in the ACS Charter that any “colonization” of negroes was to be on a voluntary basis only. Needless to say, the idea that all the negroes were going to leave voluntarily always was a joke. ”

    The operating arrangement of the ACS was that slaves would be offered freedom in exchange for colonization financed by the ACS. Freedom without expulsion was not part of the ACS program though, of course slave holders retained authority outside ACS to free slaves. Taylor is more correct in his characterization of the ACS than you are.

  17. Curle: “The operating arrangement of the ACS was that slaves would be offered freedom in exchange for colonization financed by the ACS.”

    Bullshit. The ACS didn’t bargain with slaves to sign contracts to leave. Slaves weren’t able to sign contracts. Where did you get that stupid idea?

    The ACS was a ridiculous, ineffectual attempt to solve the societal problem presented by negroes who had already been freed. The “colonization” it sponsored was a strictly voluntary arrangement, which was why it was doomed to fail from the outset. But Taylor wants to leave his readers with the impression that it was forcible expulsion that was being contemplated and planned for. He even says that Lincoln advocated this, which is an utter lie. Lincoln never called for it, and in fact, did the opposite, and called for the freed negroes to be given citizenship and the vote!

  18. Curle says:

    Me: “The operating arrangement of the ACS was that slaves would be offered freedom in exchange for colonization financed by the ACS.”

    You: “ Bullshit”

    Encyclopedia Brittanica:

    “The membership was overwhelmingly white—with some clergymen and abolitionists but also a large number of slave owners—and all generally agreed with the prevailing view of the time that free blacks could not be integrated into white America.”

    “The society’s program focused on purchasing and freeing slaves, paying their passage (and that of free blacks) to the west coast of Africa, and assisting them after their arrival there.”

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/American-Colonization-Society

    Given your level of ignorance-based scorn I’m tempted to go into further detail about the plantation owners who led the way on this project and paid for initial efforts with slaves they purchased or already owned and and freed as an incentive to colonize Liberia but why bother? You’ve already outed yourself as an buffoon.

    Tip: don’t amuse yourself by referring to an exercise largely built around freeing and transporting slaves as getting negroes to leave voluntarily. Slaves and negroes are not always overlapping categories. It highlights the enormity of your confusion.

  19. Curle: “… all generally agreed with the prevailing view of the time that free blacks could not be integrated into white America.”

    So, in other words, you are such a fucking idiot that you can’t figure out that your own cite agrees with me. I wrote, and I’ll repeat it because you are so fucking stupid:

    The ACS was a ridiculous, ineffectual attempt to solve the societal problem presented by negroes who had already been freed.

    Apparently you realize you can’t take issue with the adjectives “ridiculous” and “ineffectual” since only a relative handful out of four million freed slaves decided to leave. You can’t refute the fact that it was a voluntary arrangement, on which point your own cite also agrees with me. I notice you also don’t even try to defend Jared Taylor’s lie that Lincoln advocated forcible deportation. Instead you lamely try to deflect with more bullshit.

    Curle: “Tip: don’t amuse yourself by referring to an exercise largely built around freeing and transporting slaves as getting negroes to leave voluntarily. Slaves and negroes are not always overlapping categories. It highlights the enormity of your confusion. ”

    That it was free negroes who were seen as the problem was what I said, you fucking dope. Don’t blame your shitty reading comprehension on me. I even italicized the part you missed.

    • Replies: @Curle
  20. Curle says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “That it was free negroes who were seen as the problem.”

    ACS was founded to address the problem of slavery and free blacks. The one obviously leading to the other. In contrast to the scorn you erroneously heap on Taylor due to your astounding, not to mention brazen, levels of ignorance the Society saw offering freedom to slaves in exchange for relocation to Liberia as the carrot to achieve this end. Your bloviating about free blacks not wanting to go completely misunderstands the situation.

    That even slaves didn’t want freedom bad enough to relocate to Liberia underscores that for many the plantation system was less fearsome than Africa.

  21. Curle: “In contrast to the scorn you erroneously heap on Taylor due to your astounding, not to mention brazen, levels of ignorance the Society saw offering freedom to slaves in exchange for relocation to Liberia as the carrot to achieve this end.”

    As your own cite says, they were freed first. What part of ““The society’s program focused on purchasing and freeing slaves …” do you find it so difficult to comprehend? It was FREED negroes who posed the problem to white society. It was FREED negroes who were offered the chance to depart. As slaves, they were unable to agree to do anything other than what their masters ordered. They could have been ordered to leave. But to simply order SLAVES to leave would have offended the delicate sensibilities of the white Christians of the time. Hence their lunatic insistence on freeing the negroes first.

    As for heaping scorn on Taylor, it’s an open question whether he deserves it more than you. After all, he at least is clever enough to make a living by misleading people. You do it for free!

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 Jared Taylor Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Becker update V1.3.2