What the Founders Really Thought About Race

National Policy Institute, February 14, 2012

The National Policy Institute has published a report by Jared Taylor detailing the Founding Fathers’ views on race. The 21-page report is a strong rebuttal to the notion that our nation’s architects believed in racial equality. The full report is available online and as a PDF document here.

The National Policy Institute’s website is available here.

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • From the paper:

    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

    Another piece of evidence is the Militia Act of 1792, which explicitly exempted black men (and I also think Indian men) from the “individual mandate” of militia service and acquiring the required accoutrements.

    The Missouri constitution barred the immigration of Blacks

    If only…

  • Dear Mr. Taylor,

    A Wonderful piece of Work!  Thank You!

  • Anonymous

    Wow.  Great read.  Breezed through it, because it was not only well written but also to the point and fascinating.  While Eisenhower is given a lot of grief here for his agreement with Brown v. Board and his actions integrating in Arkansas, we must remember he did his best to keep the mexican out (Operation Wetback).  But if he known how far the Civil Rights movement went–from equal protection at first to the discrimination against whites we see today–I doubt Ike would have done what he did.

    • Marcy Fleming

       Not so. Ike was a very leftwing Democrat as even Truman thought up until January 1952. His pro-Communist record in and after WW2 in Operation Keelhaul and implementing the savage Communist Morgenthau Plan for Germany is well documented in After The Reich by Giles Macdonogh and The Politician by Robert Welch.
      Also see Operation Keelhaul by Julius Epstein.
      Ike destroyed McCarthy’s investigations into Communist infiltration of FedGov and tried to destroy the Taft Conservative wing of the GOP. Ike expanded the New Deal policies in all areas, domestic and foreign and he had similiar features to LBJ’s monstrous 1964 Civil Rights Act in his 1957 bill but southern Dems were able to delete them.
      He did have one good policy, Operation Wetback, but that was more than zeroed out by the sum of his policies. 

      • This is a very good post,thank you. I knew Ike had a venomous hatred of Mccarthy,and this was considered a great plus to his character by the libbies. Now I see that maybe Ike wasnt so hot after all.I know McCarthy may have been drunk,mentally ill,etc,but he was surely right about the left. I hate the eway jerks like Beck glorify the rotten,lousy,stinking Civil Rites (as in Last Rites) Bill and vilify McCarthy. “Oh God its McCarthyizm!!” 

      • Anonymous

        I’d take slightly more government that Ike brought on (interstate highway and NASA) for a door to door search in latino neighborhoods which successfully drive out the illegal.  While I agree Ike wasn’t as anti-government as I or other conservatives would like, what was more important was his cultural conservatism–his desire to bring peace and prosperity to Americans and not the mexican invader.

  • Anonymous

    That damn Gaybraham.

  • As usual, Jared Taylor is phenomenal.

  • One thing that troubles me, though.

    I was always taught that words were cheaper than dirt, and that actions, especially the net consequence of actions, is what really mattered.

    One can produce many “racial” statements from Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Dwight Eisenhower.  But their actions as President accrued to the benefit of the ideology of racial egalitarianism.

    Interesting sidebar:  The morning after Eisenhower sent the NG to Little Rock, the Manchester Union-Leader (New Hampshire) had a big bold giant letter headline that read, “GUNS INTEGRATE SCHOOLS,” and above the title were these big bold letters:  “THE IRON FIST IN “FREE” AMERICA.”

  • Would you please put forth a Paper on islam in America and how it was never meant to be please?  Barbary Wars? 

  • Anonymous

    Until the 1960s prominent Americans made statements about blacks that would be dangerous to make today. Unfortunately, they would be difficult to disprove using current crime statistics, test scores, and illegitimacy rates.
     
    Occasionally prominent Americans made negative statements about Orientals. These are easy to disprove. Oriental Americans demonstrate patterns of studiousness, industry, obedience to the law, and marital stability many whites should emulate. 

    • AO

       You’re obsessed. Why don’t you move to Japan or something?

      • Anonymous

        The obsession is yours. Why don’t you go back to the past? The present is uncongenial to you. The future will be worse. 

    • I’d say all your posts on Asians are only rationalizations. I remember when I was an adolescent & had a crush on a Chinese girl (OK, this yellow fever passed). But, whenever I see a White man harping on Asian virtues, I think ….. sex, sex, sex and sex. You can add IQ, cuisine, haiku, Chinese painting, Chern- (Simmons) algebras, model citizens, Confucian virtues, inventions during medieval era…. but it all boils down to: S-E-X.

      Of course, I may be wrong.

    • Anonymous
    • Anonymous

      Asians are certainly obedient. That is why they are so susceptible to tyranny. They are like robots in China and they are natural collectivists.

      • Anonymous

        Oriental obedience contributes to their low crime rates. 

        • Anonymous

          Yes but it also leads to authoritarian government who can easily control its populace. Whites history of individualism, especially among Anglo-Saxons, is a threat to the elites of the world. I suppose that is why they have chosen to import a new more subservient people.

          • Anonymous

            The Anglo-Saxons evolved from three German tribes: the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes. Germany succumbed to the authoritarianism of Adolf Hitler. 

          • Anonymous

            Nazis certainly had a collectivist mentality but that does not represent the majority of German history. It took a very long time for the German provinces to unite under Bismark. Hitler appealed to the nationalism the 19th century to convince Germans that collectivist national socialism and revenge for WWI.

  • My point exactly.  All three were typical whore politicians who said anything to anyone.  Their racial statements were designed to curry favor with whites who though in racial terms.  Their anti-racial statements?  Same deal.  I look at actions, and the long term net consequence of actions, not words or a few inconsequential actions.

    Richard Nixon in his private life was N-word and J-word.  But Nixon really got the affirmative action ball rolling.

  • Anonymous

    Levin gushes endlessly about Lincoln in particular – I believe his father penned a book prasing Licoln also. Lincoln has become a sort of  new-age icon to movement conservatism, alongside ML King and Winston Churchill. Of course they always tell their tales leaving out critical information, such as Lincoln’s views on Blacks, King’s dubious personal behavior and Communist connections , or Churchill’s effusive praise of Joseph Stalin when it politically suited him to take such an inexcusable position.

    In that respect, it all fits modern “conservatism” perfectly – both they and their heroes are either frauds or fraudulently represented!! 

  • Anonymous

    Inferior races do not displace superior races. 

    • Anonymous

      Wrong again. Look at any of our major cites and tell us they we weren’t displaced.

      • Anonymous

        You make an interesting point. Nevertheless, white flight has not happened because of high Oriental crime rates. 

    •  Who defines “inferior”?  Thats a ridiculously arcane term. Inferior and superior can only be used to refer to objective,quantifiable things. Clearly and obviously,OUR nation is superior to China. But how will Chinese adapt to OUR society? Very well. The way a wolf adapts to a herd of cattle much better than the opposite. And no,John,I am not saying white people are cattle;I am saying our society is built for freedom,openness,merit.Its made for the way we do things. The Chinese got to be licking their chops at the prospect of setting up shop here. look at the other nations whrer they dominate the economy far in exces of their numbers. We dont need them. I dont want them.

      •  Re inferior vs superior. Tiger is on the verge on extinction. Rats, on the contrary, cannot be exterminated.

        Now, who’s “superior”, tigers or rats ?

  • Anonymous

    What is the logical reason for them to remain in a place that they don’t like and where they’re not wanted? Even the Bantus that we sent to Liberia are now returning in large numbers.

  • Anonymous

    It is not natural for members of one race to welcome members of a very different race.  Bias is like apple pie.

    • Anonymous

      The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more
      ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or
      his holy cause.   

       – Eric Hoffer, from “The True Believer”

      • Apparently 94% of American’s were losers in 1958 as seen in the Gallup poll you posted below.

        Apparently the Japanese and Chinese still are. They think very highly of their group.

        This country was made great by people who took pride in the group to which they belonged.

        Groups beat individuals.

        That is why your hyper-individualism which denigrates people for placing any importance in being part of a blood based ethnic community is going to destroy us.

        You and your “freedom and democracy” completed separated from any ethnic or racial base will be overrun by those who still do place value in blood ties. In other words pretty much everybody except English speaking whites and other Western Europeans.

  • Anonymous

    The U.S.A. is more of an empire than a nation these days and I think I hear a fiddle playing. 

  • Uhm…Lincoln was killed because he wanted to get rid of blacks? Boothe wanted to keep blacks?

    • Alexandra Spears

      Has it occurred to you that perhaps TPTB wanted to keep them here because they knew, down the road, a race war would ignite, and give them an excuse to declare martial law and shred what’s left of the Constitution?  Repatriating them would have thwarted those plans.

  • Because they are given a standard of living that far surpassess anything they could ever approach on their own, an opportunity for quality of life that is nothing short of  astonishing in an all black nation,(What would the late,lamented W. Houston be in an all black milieu? )and a respite from the tumult of their own savagery.But still,yeah,they should get out.  I dont think its gonna happen,lol.

  • Anonymous

    When Mr. Jefferson penned the phrase, ‘all men are created equal’, was he including blacks? Considering his experience and observations about blacks, I can’t believe he believed blacks were the equal of whites.

    As a northerner,  I know I’m going to stir up a hornets nest but I place most of the blame for our problem with  blacks on Jefferson and not Lincoln.

    Jefferson owned slaves. He had first hand experience with them. He knew blacks and whites were incompatible and he even foresaw trouble when blacks were freed (which he considered inevitable). He had the forum to end the practice and send blacks back to Africa. He didn’t.

    Lincoln, on the other hand, had plans to repatriate blacks. Had he lived, would his plans been carried out? 

    I know ‘The War’ is a touchy issue but Lincoln had to deal with a problem Jefferson could have worked to solve in the early stages when he was alive.

    OK, take your best shot!

    • I’m a pro-Southern borderline fanatic who is glad that the Union won the WBTS in one regard:  Industrialization.  If the South would have won, it would have taken a lot longer for what was left of the United States to become an industrial powerhouse, because just south of a smaller USA, you would have had a low tariff CSA.  High tariffs begat industrialization, and then with the later labor union movement, that fueled the greatest lift in the standard of living of the average person in the history of the world.

      It’s just too bad that the enemy victory screwed up the proper relationship between citizen and state and also State and Federal governments, and also de facto enshrined a false and delusional construction of racial equality into American Constitutional and legal jurisprudence.

      • Anonymous

        Maybe we can agree that Jefferson and Lincoln both suffered human flaws that compelled them to not act and act in ways that have been to the detriment of the white race and these United States. They each made bad choices with the consequences reverberating to this day. 
         
        Which was worse, us bound to an alien people who will forever drag us down or losing fundamental rights? If they both had foresight, maybe we wouldn’t be in this mess.    

  • Anonymous

    You better go back and review. 

  • How far we have strayed…

  • Anonymous

    Great article,which i had the pleasure of reading back when amren had the old website.I like this new site but long for the easy use of the search bar to search for old articles written by Samuel Francis and others.They were so easy to locate.When i type in Sam Francis in the search area all that comes back is one article.Many times my searches returns back no results.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Just wanted to respond to the part in the article that states..In fact,nine of the first 11 Presidents owned slaves,the only exceptions being the two adamses.Despite Jeffersons hope for eventual abolition,he made no provision to free his slaves after his death…James Madison agreed with Jefferson that the only solution to the race problem was to free the slaves and expel them.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               The way i see it,the first nine Presidents that owned slaves are remarkably similiar in fault to those of our modern day conservatives whose hypocrisy is so transparent who rail when it is beneficial politically for them to do so,to claim they are against illegal immigration but have hired illegals to tidy their lawns and homes and such.I have great respect for Jefferson but clearly he is not without fault in the bigger picture what we are witnessing today  with diversity and multi-culturalism…One of the Norths best known Generals of the Civil War was Grant who also owned slaves.That adds to the clarity that the Civil War was not fought over slavery.

  • Anonymous

    BTW…would enjoy reading articles about the History of  White Slavery in Early America. None of that nonsense either of using the term “indentured servitude” which is nothing more than a propagandistic softening of the historic experience of enslaved White people in order to make a false distinction between their sufferings and those of Black slaves.

  • Anonymous

    Two of the best friends I ever had in my life were Chinese Americans. Three of my girl friends were. I am not lying. You are a race bigot. 

  • Anonymous

    Gallup September 12, 2011
     
    PRINCETON, NJ — Americans are approaching unanimity in their views of marriages
    between blacks and whites, with 86% now approving of such unions. Americans’
    views on interracial marriage have undergone a major transformation in the past
    five decades. When Gallup first asked about black-white marriages in 1958, 4%
    approved.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/Record-High-Approve-Black-White-Marriages.aspx 
     
    ———–
     
    Changing mores are not always beneficial. The growth in illegitimacy has caused a host of social pathologies. Nevertheless, I cannot think of anything tangibly wrong with miscegenation. 

    • It destroys the white race. The European type of man.

      It took thousands of years for this unique specimen of humanity to be formed.

      You and those like you will destroy that in a few minutes of grunting passion leaving behind a descendant that is trapped between two different worlds that can never be bridged.

      It’s like saying I see nothing “tangibly wrong” with dragging the American flag around in the mud and then setting it on fire. If you are from outer Mongolia this symbol probably means absolutely nothing to you.

      If you see this flag as being connected to the hopes and dreams, toils and pains, suffering and sacrifice of hundreds of years of individuals that you have a blood and cultural connection to and that you take pride in, it means something else altogether. In this case you most likely will definitely see something “tangibly wrong” with performing such an action.

      It’s the same with miscegenation. It was very important to the majority of our ancestors that they were of European extraction or “white.” This was the case, both North and South, from the colonial era down into the 1960’s at least. You are taking what they valued and you are trailing it around in the mud and calling garbage and evil what they loved.

      I think you need to give good reason to abolish our 300 plus year old moral code and self conception of ourselves. Especially when there is a similar pride of and concept about ethnicity in Asian countries to this day. The very Asian countries you are so impressed with and say are doing so well in today’s world.

      Also I’d like to point out the Gallup poll from 1958 didn’t ask the question of whether people approved of relationships between “whites and blacks.”

      The question was if they approved of relationships between whites and non-whites.

      94% disapproved in 1958.

      We have betrayed our ancestors.

      Thus the name “American Renaissance” I think. We need a rebirth of the old culture.

      • Anonymous

        I think you need to give good reason to abolish our 300 plus year old moral code.         
        – Anglo Protestant American
            
        ————
         
        When it comes to rates of crime and marital stability Orientals live up to “our 300 plus year old moral code” better than we do. 

        • Great, when do we capitulate to Chinese rule?

          Lets administer IQ tests to see if our siblings or children continue to get to be our family members or if they are beat out by those more academically qualified.   

          • Anonymous

            Would you like an affirmative action program on behalf of whites who cannot compete with Oriental Americans? 

          • That’s a good question.

            The way it would be answered though would be whether it was short or long term we are talking about.

            Ultimately, in the long term I would not want enough Asians to still be residing on this continent for it to be a major issue. I’d like to see them repatriated to their lands of origin through incentives and through making them not feel completely welcome as permanent residents through a revitalization of the older American ethnocentrism which would cause the nation to close ranks against them in providing full access to all areas of our society. Just as it is in Asia currently in how outsiders are regarded. I would also once again like the idea that an Asian or any other non-white would be placed in any serious position of authority or power in this society to become laughable.

            In the short term with regards to politics i.e., obtaining what is currently possible I realize the goals must be different.

            I am absolutely in favor of a push for complete race blindness in the mainstream political arena until if and when a rebirth of the old ideas arise in enough people to begin winning elections with them.

            It should be just as the 1960’s radicals did but in reverse. The mainstream face of the movement batting their eyelashes and saying don’t be scared of little old us we are pure and innocent, we just what an equal chance to compete in society. At the same time though there is a more radical message going on in the background that is really driving these changes and without pausing to even stop to catch their breath anti-Americans went straight from talking about colorblindness to discriminating against white people.

            Yes, anti-white discrimination needs to be brought to an end but that is merely the first step. Once those fortresses are down you don’t stop there you continue pouring through the enemy’s breached lines and you take back the whole thing.

            Discrimination against white Americans in the United States should absolutely be regarded as wrong, but not because all discrimination is wrong. What this really comes down to is who’s country is this? Which conception of what it means to be American will stand the pre or post 1960’s one. One that is based on blood or one that utterly separated from it.

            I am most certainly convinced the post 1960’s conception will not survive whether or not our old one revives or not though. Something else will arise to replace the atomized groupless individuals who used to be Americans.

          • Anonymous

            Anglo Protestant American,
             
            You seem to advocate racial collectivism. I do not see the United States moving in that direction. Poor whites identify more with rich whites than with poor non whites. That is why most of them vote Republican. Rich whites do not usually identify more with poor whites than with rich Orientals.  Rich whites and whites with the talent and drive to become rich usually value individualism and competition more than any sort of racial identity. I do not see that changing in the future. 

            If one feels something strongly, as you seem to, it is easy to over estimate the number of people who feel the same way, and easy to underestimate the difficulty of converting others to one’s persuasion.  I expect Orientals to continue to thrive in the United States because most of them behave and perform well. They earn their positions at the best universities, with the best corporations, and in the most prestigious careers.  They earn those things through superior talent, and by adhering to traditional virtues many whites have abandoned. 

            After one or two generations Orientals usually earn more money than whites.

          • Well if that’s what the people who abolished the old America are calling authentic original Americanism these days I suppose. Racial collectivism, it has a nice flare, makes it sound like it is something invented by Karl Marx or Joseph Stalin instead of what it really is, the taken for granted view of our founders.

            If you’ll freely admit that the father of our country was a “racial collectivist” for signing the 1790 act limiting naturalization to “free white persons” into law then I will cheerfully admit to being one.

  • Anonymous

    The founding fathers would have evolved in regards to therr views on race.

  • Anonymous

    In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson complained that King George III, “has excited domestic
    insurrections among us.” 
     
    This passage was inspired by the following passage from the Constitution of South
    Carolina, which was signed March 26, 1776. 
    This document complained that, “His Majesty…excited domestic
    insurrections; proclaimed freedom to servants and slaves…and armed them against
    their masters.”  

  • Anonymous

    During the American Revolution slavery was legal in each of the thirteen rebellious colonies. It was illegal in England. 
     
    In his essay, “Taxation No Tyranny: An Answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American Congress,” Samuel Johnson asked, “how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?”
     
    http://www.samueljohnson.com/tnt.html 

  • Anonymous

    Perhaps your freinds ancestor status  was  that of a  White apprentice(also called “indentured servants,” “redemptioners,” and  “free-willers”).Other categories of  status for White people in British Colonial America were White freemen,White freemen  who owned property and White slaves. Fact is,most Masters enforced  an often violent social domination  of (White) servants by  the manipulation of oppressive legal codes…transforming…indentured servitude,with its pre-industrial,moral,paternalistic superstructure,into a market system of brutal servitude…maintained by the systematic application of legally sanctioned force and violence.                                                                                                                                                   Informal British and colonial custom validated the kidnapping  of working -class British Whites and their  enslavement in the colonies under such euphemisms as “Servitude according to the Custom,”which  upheld the force of “verbal contracts” which shipmasters and press-gangs claimed existed between them and the wretched Whites they kidnapped off the streets of England and sold into colonial slavery…Excerpt taken  from Michael A. Hoffman II book,’They Were White and They Were Slaves,The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America.’

  •  Perhaps it is time to repeal Women’s Sufferage?

  •  Drew: I don’t believe so. Languages (natural, not machine-generated) evolve over time. They do so not only to accommodate changes to the world around us, but because linguistic habits change.  For example, no one knew the word “radio” in the 1700s.

    While I am far from a linguist, I also believe that languages come about due to the way the mind is formed.  It is obvious that the Oriental languages have FAR different constructions from those of the Romance or Indo-European.

    What I am getting to is: I do not think a universal language for everyday use will come about.  The language of air traffic control, most science, and most commerce, is English.  At one time, German and to a lesser extent French, dominated the scientific fields and fluency in one or both was virtually required of advanced researchers. 

    But, everyday communications will continue in local languages.  There may be some joining of dialects (what Englishman still calls “radio” “wireless”, for example?), but individual languages will likely be around for a long time.