Jared Taylor and the Fight Against Fake History

From Orwell’s 1984 comes the memorable quote that states, “Those that control the past control the future and those who control the present control the past.” Indeed, a foundational cornerstone of mind control and psychological manipulation exerts its power in the form of what we can correctly allude to as “fake history.”

Time and again we have witnessed the phenomenon whereby the enemies of western, Christian civilization create a factually inaccurate historical construct as a means of thwarting potential opposition to their own illicit and nefarious agenda. Of course, this preemptive technique could be effectively resisted if our people would simply adhere to the basic Biblical instruction set forth in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 which reads, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”


Jared Taylor, American Renaissance Editor

In the accompanying article (below) entitled What the Founding Fathers Really Thought About Race, Jared Taylor skillfully and compellingly advances proof beyond reasonable doubt concerning the subject and question of how America’s white, male, Christian founders viewed, opined about, and acted toward the subject of race.

If one will read Mr. Taylor’s masterfully constructed argument with even a scintilla of intellectual honesty, he will find it preposterous, if not impossible, to continue to fall victim to prevalent, contemporary “fake history” relative to this all important subject.

Take This Weapon and Wield It Mightily

The spurious notion that America was conceived and brought into existence for the purpose of evolving into a melting pot of diverse races, religions, and cultures resides at the very core of the toxic syndrome that threatens our future survival. Our ability to advance the truth agenda on a host of fronts hinges on the speed and efficiency with which we can dispense with such a sordid and baseless premise. Once we decimate this specious, foundational argument of modern, emotion-driven egalitarianism...the remainder of its bogus house of cards will be much inclined to collapse in a well-deserved, chaos-laden heap.

With his customary, penetrating logic and insight...Jared Taylor has hit the bullseye and has provided us with the perfectly formulated intellectual salvo to thoroughly eviscerate the fake history that has held our kinsmen captive and rendered us seemingly impotent in the ongoing fight for renaissance and restoration.

The reader is implored to take this message and boldly shout it from the housetops. The hour is late and we haven’t a minute to squander.

What the Founding Fathers *Really* Thought About Race

By Jared Taylor

Today, the United States officially takes the position that all races are equal. Our country is also committed―legally and morally―to the view that race is not a fit criterion for decision-making of any kind, except for promoting “diversity” or for the purpose of redressing past wrongs done by Whites to non-Whites.

Glenn Beck Michele Bachmann

Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann

Many Americans cite the “all men are created equal” phrase from the Declaration of Independence to support the claim that this view of race was not only inevitable but was anticipated by the Founders. Interestingly, prominent conservatives and Tea Party favorites like Michele Bachmann and Glenn Beck have taken this notion a step further and asserted that today’s racial egalitarianism was the nation’s goal from its very first days.[1]

They are badly mistaken.

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.[2] 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.[3] 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 1743 - 1826 3rd President of the United States

Thomas Jefferson
1743 - 1826
3rd President of the United States

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.”[4] He hoped slavery would be abolished some day, but “when freed, he [the Negro] is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.”[5] 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,”[6] and the hemisphere was to be entirely European: “… nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface.”[7]

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[8]:

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?

George Washington 1732 - 1799 1st President of the United States

George Washington
1732 - 1799
1st President of the United States

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.

James Madison 1751 - 1836 4th President of the United States

James Madison
1751 - 1836
4th President of the United States

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.”[9] 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.[10]

Benjamin Franklin 1706 - 1790 6th President of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania

Benjamin Franklin
1706 - 1790
6th President of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania

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[11]:

[W]hy increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America?"

John Dickinson 1739 - 1808

John Dickinson
1739 - 1808 5th President of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania

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[12]:

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?

John Jay 1745 - 1829 1st Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

John Jay
1745 - 1829
1st Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

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,”[13]

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."

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, specified that only “free white persons” could be naturalized,[14] and immigration laws designed to keep the country overwhelmingly white were repealed only in 1965.

Alexander Hamilton 1757 - 1804 1st United States Secretary of the Treasury

Alexander Hamilton
1757 - 1804
1st United States Secretary of the Treasury

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.”[15]

John Quincy Adams 1767 - 1848 6th President of the United States

John Quincy Adams
1767 - 1848
6th President of the United States

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.”[16] Neither man would have countenanced immigration of non-Whites.

Charles Pinckney 1746 - 1825 United States Minister to France

Charles Pinckney
1746 - 1825
United States Minister to France

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. The 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.”[17]


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.[18]

Nor was abolitionist sentiment anything 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.[19]

The Fruits of Amalgamation. E. W. Clay.1839.

The Fruits of Amalgamation. E. W. Clay.1839.

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.”[20]

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.[21]

1838 burning of the abolitionists' meeting hall. (Pennsylvania Hall) Firefighters doused neighboring buildings, but let the hall burn.

1838 burning of the abolitionists' meeting hall in Philadelphia. (Pennsylvania Hall) Firefighters doused neighboring buildings, but let the hall burn.

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.

Henry Ward Beecher 1813 - 1887

Henry Ward Beecher
1813 - 1887 American Congregationalist clergyman

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.”[22]

Henry Clay 1777 - 1852 9th United States Secretary of State

Henry Clay
1777 - 1852
9th United States Secretary of State

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.”[23] 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.[24] 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.

Josiah Quincy 1744 - 1775

Josiah Quincy
1744 - 1775 American lawyer and patriot

Early Americans wrote their opposition to miscegenation into law. Between 1661 and 1725, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and all the southern colonies passed laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage and, in some cases, fornication.[25] Of the 50 states, no fewer than 44 had laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage at some point in their past.[26] 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.”[27]

Massachusetts prohibited miscegenation from 1705 to 1843, but repealed the ban only because most people thought it was unnecessary.[28] 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 become a problem.[29]

David Wilmot 1814 - 1868 United States House of Representatives from Pennsylvania, United States Senator

David Wilmot
1814 - 1868
United States House of Representatives from Pennsylvania, United States Senator

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.”[30]

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.[31]

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.”[32]

Roger Taney 1777 - 1864 5th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Roger Taney
1777 - 1864
5th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

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[33]:

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.

Abraham Lincoln’s time was well beyond the era of the Founders, but many Americans believe it was “the Great Emancipator” who finally brought the egalitarian vision of Jefferson’s generation to fruition.

Again, they are mistaken.

Abraham Lincoln 1809 - 1865 16th President of the United States

Abraham Lincoln
1809 - 1865
16th President of the United States

Lincoln considered Blacks to be—in his words—“a troublesome presence”[34] in the United States. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates he stated[35]:

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.

Stephen Douglas 1813 - 1861 United States Senator from Illinois, 7th Secretary of State of Illinois

Stephen Douglas
1813 - 1861
United States Senator from Illinois, 7th Secretary of State of Illinois

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]

Douglas, who was the more firmly anti-Black of the two candidates, won the election.[36]

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 would have accepted Southern slavery in perpetuity if that would have kept the South from seceding, as he stated explicitly.[37]

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[38], adding that he had “no objection” to its ratification, and he sent copies of the text to all state governors.[39] Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois eventually 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.[40]

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 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.[41]

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.[42]

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.[43] 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.[44]


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.

Mark Twain 1835 - 1910 "Father of American Literature"

Mark Twain
1835 - 1910
"Father of American Literature"

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 part of the United States at all. 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.[45] The traditional American view—Mark Twain called the Indian “a good, fair, desirable subject for extermination if ever there was one”[46]—cannot be retroactively transformed into incipient egalitarianism and celebration of diversity.[47]

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. 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 problems enough with Negroes.[48]

Samuel Gompers 1850 - 1924 Labor Leader

Samuel Gompers
1850 - 1924
Labor Leader

Samuel Gompers, the most famous labor leader in American history, fought to improve the lives of working people, but Whites were his first priority[49]:

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."

The ban on Chinese immigration and naturalization continued until 1943, when Congress established a Chinese immigration quota—of 105 people a year.[50]

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 1831 - 1881 20th President of the United States

James Garfield
1831 - 1881
20th President of the United States

James Garfield wrote[51],

[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.

Theodore Roosevelt 1858 - 1919 26th President of the United States

Theodore Roosevelt
1858 - 1919
26th President of the United States

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.”[52] 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.”[53]

William Taft 1857 - 1930 27th President of the United States

William Taft
1857 - 1930
27th President of the United States

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.”[54]

Woodrow Wilson 1856 - 1924 28th President of the United States

Woodrow Wilson
1856 - 1924
28th President of the United States

Woodrow Wilson was a confirmed segregationist, and as President of Princeton he refused to admit Blacks. He enforced segregation in government offices[55] 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.”[56]

Warren Harding 1865 - 1923 29th President of the United States

Warren Harding
1865 - 1923
29th President of the United States

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.”[57]

Calvin Coolidge 1872 - 1933 30th President of the United States

Calvin Coolidge
1872 - 1933
30th President of the United States

In 1921, Vice President-elect Calvin Coolidge wrote in Good Housekeeping about the basis for sound immigration policy[58]:

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.

Harry Truman 1884 - 1972 33rd President of the United States

Harry Truman
1884 - 1972
33rd President of the United States

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.”[59]

Dwight Eisenhower 1890 - 1969 34th President of the United States

Dwight Eisenhower
1890 - 1969
34th President of the United States

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.”[60]

John F. Kennedy 1917 - 1963 35th President of the United States

John F. Kennedy
1917 - 1963
35th President of the United States

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.


[1] Speaking at an “Iowans for Tax Relief” event in January, 2011, Rep. Bachmann claimed, “It didn’t matter the color of their skin, it didn’t matter their language, it didn’t matter their economic status. Once you got here, we were all the same. Isn’t that remarkable?” Taking up the slavery issue, Bachmann continued, “We also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.” She would later defend her position when questioned by journalists. Bachmann’s speech can be viewed here. Glenn Beck has been equally enamored with historical revisionism. Throughout his “Founding Fathers’ Fridays” series on his (now discontinued) television program, Beck featured speakers who theorized that “American history can be described as one long Civil Rights struggle” and who told tales of the indispensable contributions of Blacks to the Revolutionary War as well as racially mixed churches in 18th-century. Episodes can viewed here. Bachmann and Beck are representative of a broader tendency among conservatives. For instance, in 2011, Tennessee Tea Party activists demanded that public schools teach children that the Founders “brought liberty into a world where it hadn’t existed, to everybody—not all equally instantly.” See “The Commercial Appeal,” 13 January 2011.

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

[3] Ibid, p. 128.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[17] 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. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s15.html

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

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

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

[21] Ibid., pp. 87–91.

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

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

[24] Ibid., p. 132.

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

[26] Ibid., p. 2.

[27] Ibid., p. 11.

[28] 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.

[29] Ibid., p. 139.

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

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

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

[33] Full text of the decision is available here.

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

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

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

[37] 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 here.

[38] For the full text of the address is available here.

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

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

[41] Ibid., pp. 206–211.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[48] Ibid., pp. 293–6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[56] Quoted in Robert Fikes, “Racist Quotes From Persons of Note, Part II,” p. 1.

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

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

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

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




6 Responses

  1. Great essay! I only wish that more people, especially young, White children, could read it.
  2. I take solace in knowing beyond all doubt that Jesus reigns and will judge you and your kind in the manner you deserve. You repeatedly distort scripture in such a way as to promote your views on segregation and racial superiority. However, as we know, as Bible Believing Born Again Christians, God created all humans and all humans descended from Adam and Eve. In point of fact, all humans descended from Noah after the flood. We are all equal in the eyes of God, our father. However, Jesus made clear that many who cry "Lord Lord" will be counted among the goats and cast in to the fires of hell. You and your fellow hate-mongers will be counted among the goats and will spend eternity in hell if you do not repent, ask the Lord Jesus for forgiveness and accept him into your heart. You know Jesus, you say? Scripture teaches us that all demons know Jesus. You dont have love in your heart. Paul says that one can speak in the tongue of angels but if he has not love it is just a clanging gong. You and your kind are clanging gongs -- full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Jesus commands us to love our neighbors. The parable of the good samaritan teaches us that EVERYONE is our neighbor, even our worst enemies. You don't love your neighbor. For now, your fate has been determined. You may enjoy victories in this realm because satan is permitted to prosper for a time. But your end will come and you will be judged most harshly by Jesus at the Great White Throne Judgment because you blaspheme his Holy Name and you are leading young ones astray. Scripture says it will be better for you to have a millstone tied around your neck and for you to be cast to the bottom of the sea. You still have time to repent, but time is running short. The Lord will return soon. Think long and hard about the path you've chosen. Eternity is a very long time to be wrong.
    • Rick Tyler Rick Tyler
      Unfortunately, the Bill Gilmans’ of this world are a dime a dozen. They know enough to be dangerous, but nary a fraction of what they fancy themselves to be in possession of in the way of truth. One thing they are well endowed with is pride. It never occurs to them that they could be flawed and mistaken in their own understanding of scripture and how it relates to history and current state of the world. Mr. Gilman has an obvious penchant for throwing non-specific scripture references around followed by haughty and authoritative pronouncements of judgment. Although I doubt it will do any good, I have a few specific Biblical references for him. In Philippians 2:12, Paul instructs us to “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.” Mr. Gilman doesn’t strike me as being an individual who takes this verse to heart. Instead, he is smug and arrogant. He comes across as being one who considers himself to be quite the paragon of knowledge and righteousness. Could it be that he is sadly and dangerously mistaken? A genuine hallmark of being a real “Bible believing born again Christian” is the exhibition of an insatiable hunger for truth, both Biblical and extra-Biblical. He confidently states that “God created all humans and all humans descended from Adam and Eve.” He goes on to state, “In point of fact, all humans descended from Noah after the flood,” and that “we are all equal in the eyes of God, our father.” At this juncture I would advise individuals like Bill Gilman to reflect on the words of 2 Timothy 2:15 wherein Paul instructs that we should “study to show ourselves approved unto God...workmen that need not be ashamed...rightly dividing the word of truth.” Is it possible that Mr. Gilman might need to become a bit more diligent in his studies before assuming the self-appointed status of being the final and unassailable authority on subject matter such as we are dealing with? Has he ever considered who the inhabitants of Nod might have been as referenced in Genesis 4:16? Does he believe that Cain married his own sister and proceeded to build a city among a multitude of his own siblings? Bear in mind...this is the man who assumes the authority and preeminence that qualifies him to accuse me (falsely and improperly, of course) of “repeatedly distorting scripture in such a way as to promote my views on segregation and racial superiority...” while at the same time longing for and reveling in the prospect of me being cast into the fires of eternal damnation! Another verse Mr. Gilman should ponder is Exodus 20:16 which forbids the bearing of false witness. He should realize the importance of citing actual examples of the exceedingly serious charges he levies against me. Does he not understand that merely saying it is so doesn’t make something true. Does Mr. Gilman possess knowledge of any specifics wherein I have “distorted scripture?” If so, why doesn’t he lay out his case? Could it be that he is simply perturbed and offended because I dare to gore his sacred cow beliefs that derive from the traditions of men instead of the actual authority of scripture? It is actually quite alarming to observe the doctrinal superficiality of men such as Bill Gilman...especially in light of how cocksure they are of themselves. John 1:12 states that, “to as many received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, to them that believe on his name.” In other words, God is only the father of those who conform to these prerequisites and...additionally...passages such as these have nothing to do with the matter of racial distinctions among the multitudes of the earth’s population. Mr. Gilman is anything but a student of scripture and obviously has failed to study to show himself approved unto God. Instead, he is merely adept at regurgitating the tired and shopworn clichés of the modern, lukewarm church. When men such as Bill Gilman get on a roll it is quite amazing how proficient they are at stringing together misnomers and false accusations. They quickly become puffed up and full of themselves as they heap one errant charge or conclusion upon another. According to him, I am a “goat” who will be “cast into the fires of hell.” I am a “hatemonger” who will “spend eternity in hell.” He concludes that I neither “know Jesus” nor have I “accepted him into my heart.” By his assessment I am more like the “demons” in the manner that I claim to “know Jesus,” I have no “love in my heart” and am nothing more than a “clanging gong!” Based on Mr. Gilman’s foolish and ignorant misunderstanding of the account of the good Samaritan in Luke 10:33, he claims that I have no love for my neighbor and that my fate of damnation has been determined...for the time being at least. As he crescendos to the grand finale of his scorn and self-righteous judgment, Mr. Gilman equates any victories I might enjoy in the temporal realm with the works of Satan. He emphasizes the damnation he is confident will be pronounced against me at the great white throne. He concludes that I am a blasphemer of God’s holy name and am guilty of “leading young ones astray.” As such, he intones, I would be better off to have a millstone tied around my neck and be cast to the bottom of the sea. Mr. Gilman concludes by reassuring me that I “still have time to repent, but time is running short.” He reveals that the Lord will return soon (he is also an authority on the subject of eschatology) and that I should, thus, “think long and hard about the path I have chosen” since “eternity is a very long time to be wrong.” Bill Gilman fails to realize that he is nothing more than a classic example of the all too common specimen of truth-rejecting, supposed Christian that our modern era is so typified by. Our stalwart ancestors would thoroughly rebuke and reject both him and his watered down, lily-livered, modernist theology. The greatest irony revealed by the flawed logic and baseless conclusions of Gilman’s ilk is summarized by the fact that almost every single solitary false charge he makes against me, can actually legitimately be applied to his own misconduct and rejection of truth. Mr. Gilman...it is you and your type that are truly to be pitied and warned regarding the harsh fate and potential dangers that await you. For your own sake and well-being I do hope you escape the prideful and delusional bondage that has you in its death-grip.
    • Mr. Gilman, From your very first sentence, it is you that "distorts The Scripture". The Messiah Yahshua Bar Yahsef is "King of Kings", but it is YAHWEH that is GOD and who rules! Did not GOD separate "East & West" and "set the borders"? Did not GOD command HIS People not to mix with the non-Israelites? Didn't HE "hate Esau/Edom from the womb" and Esau/Edom was a race-mixer? Did not The Messiah call the mixed-Race woman with the sick daughter a "dog" and it wasn't until she admitted her place that He healed her daughter? So tell me, if all the Races are "equal", why is it that all the other Races desperately seek to live in White countries and White society? And if all the Races are "equal" in GOD's eyes, why did HE command His People not to adulterate their Race ( 6th Commandment) and reinforce it with all the other statutes against mixing "seed", "clothing", and even the "field animals who pulled a plow"? Maybe you should study 2 Thessalonians 2:11 and Luke 19:27 before judging someone else's status of salvation? GOD made only Adam & Havah and it was they who made the rest of humanity. Must be why we are all so screwed up? lol
  3. The founders were not infallible gods. So what it wasn't their (all) vision. They also had the foresight to know that the direction of the country would change. And in fact, you fail to mention that the Northern colonies were abolishing slavery and could only get the South to agree to join the Revolution if slavery was allowed to continue legally for another 50 or 60 years. THAT was in the minds of the founding fathers.
  4. Nice post!

Leave a comment