The White Republic: Myth or Reality?

Dissatisfied.

In a word, that is my reaction to Andrew Fraser’s contribution to the Jared Taylor vs. Pat Buchanan debate over the implicit whiteness of the Tea Party movement. There are a lot of insights that I happen to agree with. There are others that incline me to nitpick.

Where to start?

1.) First, this article was clearly written by someone who is not an American. It is written from a Canadian or Australian perspective and is colored by the ethnic infighting that plagues those nations. Canada and Australia have had less success in assimilating European minorities than the United States. The English-Canadian experience with placating the Quebeçois is not easily translatable to the context of American race relations.

2.) Second, Fraser assumes that “WASPs” or “Anglo-Saxon Protestants” or “Anglo-Americans” are an identifiable ethnic group. That has never been the case. These are all abusive terms coined and utilized by Jews and leftists to describe the founding stock of White America.

3.) Third, Fraser deliberately avoids using the term “White American,” or “Whites,” even though these are the terms indigenous Americans (those descended from the colonial population) have always used to describe themselves. The lineage of “white” can be traced back to the seventeenth century. The more refined “Nordic” appeared in the nineteenth century. In contrast, “WASP” is a pejorative newcomer. “Anglo-American” is an even more recent invention.

4.) Traditionally, “White” meant an individual of Northwestern European ancestry and Celto-Germanic culture. Americans subscribed to a hierarchy of whiteness: at the top, Anglo-Saxons, immediately below, the Welsh, Scots, and Scot-Irish, below them, the Germans, Dutch, and Scandinavians, then came the Irish, followed by the Meds (French, Spanish, Italians, Greeks) and the Slavs (Poles, Russians, Serbs). The Irish, Germans, and Italians were always considered “White.” Just less so than than the Anglo-Saxons. If this was not the case, they never would have been eligible to become American citizens.

5.) There was a “White Republic.” The Founders based American citizenship on whiteness. This was reflected in more than a dozen naturalization acts as well as laws that excluded blacks from the Army, Navy, and Post Office. The states had their own laws that regulated race relations on the basis of whiteness. The capstone of the “White Republic” was the Indian Removal Act and the Dred Scott decision which ruled that only Whites were American citizens.

6.) The “White Republic” famously collapsed in the War Between the States. By 1861, Fraser’s “Anglo-Americans” had bifurcated into Yankees and Southerners. The war, the subsequent military occupation, and the struggle to overthrow federal control created a distinct Southron ethnic group that persisted into the late twentieth century. The Southern states enjoyed “home rule” from 1877 until 1954. The 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were effectively nullified in the region. They were unenforceable.

7.) After Reconstruction, Southerners attempted to reconstruct the “White Republic” within the context of the Union, and the result was the Jim Crow system. The Western states had their own limited version of Jim Crow. Although segregation was outlawed in New England and the Midwest, the idea that America was a “White man’s country” prevailed there as well until the Korean War when President Truman integrated the military with an executive order.

8.) Until the 1960s, America was synonymous with White America. This was a reality that my grandparents still fondly recall. My parents came of age as it was being torn down. The “White Republic” was not a myth. It was a living arrangement that generations of White Americans took for granted. This is why it has persisted so long in the folk memory.

9.) Partitioning American into European-style ethnostates like English-America, Scot-America, Scot-Irish America, Welsh America, Irish America, Scandinavian America, German-America, Italian-America is a non-starter. It was will never happen. There is no impulse either to move forward in this direction.

Americans have always interbred. These ethnic divisions are less important than ever before. My ancestors were English, Welsh, German, Scot-Irish, and Irish. Pip Pockets is Irish, English, and Polish. H. Rock White is Scottish and German. Gregory Hood is Italian, German, and Irish. It is the exceptional American who can boost of ethnic purity; the even more exceptional American who mates only purebreds within his ethny.

10.) The “cult of constitutional patriotism” is another recent invention. As late as the 1950s, Americanism had ethnic trappings. A true American was 1.) White, 2.) English-speaking, 3.) Christian, and 4.) republican in political principles. Whiteness was a marker of American identity. The English language was another. The U.S. wasn’t stripped of its ethno-cultural foundation until the early years of the Cold War when anti-communists began to stress the universalism of American liberal democracy to compete with the Soviets in the Third World.

11.) 350 years of American history are unintelligible in the absence of the guiding ideal of the White Republic. The last 60 years only make sense in the light of its rejection. If the White Republic never existed, what is there to apologize for?

12.) The Tea Party people come from all sorts of ethnic backgrounds. They are overwhelmingly White, but this doesn’t imply they are “Anglo-Saxons.” There are Germans, Irish, Italians, and Poles in the movement. Most of them are probably some European ethnic cocktail.

13.) When the Tea Party crowd says they are “losing their country,” it reflects a vague feeling of racial displacement that goes beyond public policy disputes, even if they would never admit this in public. The proof is the disappearance of the American flag at their rallies. The deliberate use of colonial, state, and revolutionary flags are calculated to send a message: they don’t identify with the regime in Washington anymore.

With these reservations in mind, I agree with the rest of Andrew Fraser’s article. The attempt to create a colorblind, post-racial society based on multiculturalism and constitutional patriotism has failed miserably. Whites swallowed this kool aid. Non-Whites clung to the old ideal of promoting their ethnic interests at the expense of other groups. This lack of reciprocity on the part of non-Whites dooms the American experiment.

It is time for Whites – in particular, Anglo-Americans – to start searching for other alternatives.

About Hunter Wallace 12123 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

31 Comments

  1. Well I agreed with a lot in both articles.

    I suspect that most White people don’t really understand the demographic changes of the last decade, and most Whites are still hung up with their ideological conservative vs. liberal TV silliness to even comprehend how the balance of power in the US is different than even the 1980s.

    People need social reinforcement, and the TV has provided a substitute social hierarchy. If some opinion is shown as acceptable on the TV, even if every single White person in your city disagrees, it’s considered legitimate and serious – simply because it’s on the TV. It works on the news, in documentaries, in dramas and sitcoms, and even in – especially in – the commercials.

    I do not think it’s a coincidence that the major demographic and racial changes came about starting in the 1950s – in other words, at the same time as TV became mainstream. Would anyone have ever heard about Civil Rights marches in the South without the coverage on the TV news? Can anyone pretend that the news reported the events fairly and dispassionately? And as is more than obvious to everyone here, their outright hysterical hatred of anyone against immigration is barely concealed.

    The first goal of any White vanguard is going to have to be neutralizing the media or taking control of it.

    White people have lost their identity as White people because they *do not see it reflected on the TV* except as something to be scorned and avoided.

    A rhetorical question – if the TV News said the Times Square Car Bomber was a White Nationalist – how many posters here would be chiming in denouncing him, and screaming “conspiracy theory” at anyone who was skeptical of what the TV said? If FOX and CNN tonight ran stories on the violent White Tea Party terrorists who tried to bomb Diverse New York City – how many here would simply believe it?

    That’s why we don’t have a White identity anymore, and that’s how they stole our country from us.

  2. I think part of Fraser’s assessment is that losing ethnic ties has in some part led to losing our identity as a race and nation, and I must agree with this. More so for the North than the South in my opinion. The South had a distinct American culture, the North did not outside of Old World ethnicity and religion.

    E. Michael Jones makes the argument that for Northerners race is insignificant, culture and religion are the dividing lines. I think he exaggerates, but there is some truth to it.

    The ethnic division between French and British Canadians is more prominent because of the much greater proportion of French people, who make up more than 15% of the total population, especially in Quebec that is officially French. French Americans are much smaller at around 3%.

    Despite criticisms and reactions to Nordicism, we see that when Latins achieve a certain population and influence they are very ethnocentric and divisive themselves. The Quebec Liberation Front in Canada is a good example.

    Other than some minor ethnic conflicts over Italian immigration and preference for Northern and Central Europeans like that of America, I’m not aware of any major ethnic rivalries in Australia. Their Nordicism was mild in comparison with the USA.

    I don’t consider the term WASP abusive, but it is redundant, of course Anglo-Saxons are White.

  3. I doubt that there are that many old American families today that are English only or overwhelmingly English, although almost all probably contain at least some Anglo blood. Nearly every family branch on my mother’s side goes back at least to the Revolutionary War and includes English, Scottish, Scots-Irish, French Huguenot, Danish, German and Dutch. I assume this sort of broad northwestern European background is the most common kind among old stock Americans. How else could you describe that background besides “American?”

  4. I wrote this over there (at Alt Right):

    Much as I appreciate someone standing up for us much-beleaguered WASPS, it’s pretty late in the day to be choosy about what kind of whiteness we want. It’s also a little silly. Frankly, this race-vs.-ethnicity issue is only a problem if we let it become one. White Americans are a new ethnicity, one created by a mixing of the peoples of Europe, with a heavy Anglo-Saxon flavor. Once we were simply called “Americans.” Currently we don’t really have a name, so we’ll either have to create a new one, or reclaim “American.”

    Personally, I’d like to propose “Amerikaners,” which intentionally sounds like “Afrikaners,” another recently-minted white ethnicity apart from the mother continent, with whom we increasingly share a history of dispossession. I recognize, of course, that that’s not a name likely to catch on.

    In any event, we American whites, WASP and non-WASP, all have much more in common with one another than the various European ethnicities who have been squabbling for centuries. Most white Americans regard other white Americans as people like themselves, regardless of their particular ethnicity. I just don’t think it’s going to pose much of a problem for us – certainly we have much larger ones. In short, here in America, our race IS our ethnicity.

    As for the Constitutional Republic and what will become of it, I’m fairly indifferent, but you’re not going to hear me singing “God save the King” any time soon.

  5. Ethnic identity is still present in parts of the country, and was quite strong up until the past couple decades, especially the northeast, but ‘WASPs’ are definitely in the minority.

    When the US achieved independence, nearly all of the country was of British extraction, mostly English. Scottish identity survived in some parts of the country, but Dutch and Huguenots were never large in number and absorbed into ‘WASP’ or ‘Pennsylvania Dutch’ ‘ethnicities’. The Welsh had at this point already been politically united and dominated by the English to the point that a seperate identity was not strong, and combined with their small size they merged into the ‘WASP’ identity.

    The country wanted to see itself in contrast to the British/England, so the ‘American’ identity was established for the ‘WASPs’, but people still mainly identified with their state. This was becoming more of a regional identity by the time the civil war arrived.

    After the civil war, in the South, due to the presence of blacks and the near parity in population size, the conflict polarized all whites into ‘white’ or ‘black’, and formed a ‘white’ identity. Continued regional identification, cultural isolation, and lingering resentment over the war contributed to forming a ‘southern’/’southron’ identity. These today are the people who check ‘American’ on the census forms.

    The rest of the country consisted entirely of white people, so there was no need to form a ‘white’ identity.

    The ‘Yankee’ identity was New England/northeast ‘WASP’ identity.

    West of the Hudson was and to a large extent still is basically an English speaking German country, with other Germanics mixed in, though Scandinavians in the upper Midwest still hung on to a seperate identity. Due to the world wars, this German identity became politically incorrect and was greatly reduced.

    The northeast is where the most ethnic identity (and conflicts) arose, because that’s where the most ethnicities are. Irish, Italian, Polish, etc. The Democrat vs Republican struggle in southern New England, for most of the 20th century, was the WASPs (‘Yankees’, Anglicans) vs the various ‘working class’ Catholic ethnicities. To marry outside one’s own ethnic group was egregious until the 1960s or so, especially two ethnic groups with a history of conflict such as the English and the Irish.

    Today, ‘WASPs’ are a minority, not much more than 10% of the population, so separatism for them doesn’t make sense.

  6. I believe a lot of foreigners end up seeing America through NYC, Chicago, and other unrepresentative exceptions which lead them to believe that White ethnicities in America are more clearly delineated than they actually are for the overwhelming majority of the country. While I sympathize with the man’s general perspective on humanity, his analysis of America is ultimately tone deaf, warped by his alien perspective.

  7. “Third, Fraser deliberately avoids using the term “White American,” or “Whites,” even though these are the terms indigenous Americans (those descended from the colonial population) have always used to describe themselves.”

    Not “American”?

  8. Yes, English Canada and French Canada are incompatible and should split up. They probably would have long ago but for sentimental reasons on the part of Anglo Canadians in the rest of the country who pay out the ass to keep them here (and Quebecois who hate Canada but love transfer payments), coupled with a very influential Anglo minority in Quebec who doesn’t want to be hung out to dry. However, English Canada has done a great job of assimilating various other kinds of Celtic, Germanic, and Slavic immigrants. It’s pretty much like the US in that regard.

    PS the Quebecois aren’t Latins, such as the Spanish or Italians. If I had to describe them, it would be as generic central-west Europeans. I think most of them came from Northern France, but I’m not sure.

  9. For goodness sake, we’re antagonized and opposed by loose confederations of “blacks”, “jews”, “latinos/hispanics”, and “asians”, all who identify and ally even more loosely under the literally anti-White construct “people of color”.

    Concern over who is us and who is them is perfectly natural and healthy, but the insecurity and self-flagellation we suffer over Whiteness is dangerous. It reflects mainly the interests of our enemies, who have always profited from our divisions.

  10. A good article, HW. You are right on the money Veni, with your incisive assessment of the nefarious influence of the media. The mind-altering effect of the alien controlled media cannot be overstated. It is one of our biggest impediments to ethnic identity, and survival.

  11. I am in agreement with Alex Kurtagic. Those in white-advocacy cricles need to present themselves in a more favorable light.

    In that vein, I recommend a return to traditional elitist vocabulary. We should co-opt certain words for our use.

    Here are some examples. Use the following words in their pristine sense:

    Aristocracy: Someone of pure European blood. At a dinner conversation, one might remark, “He’s an aristocrat in the true sense (i.e. of pure European blood).”

    Gentleman: Someone who’s a white advocate, someone who supports preserving the white race. At a dinner conversation, one might remark, “He’s a gentelman (i.e. a white person who gets the race question and supports the interests of his own race).”

    White Trash: A white person who procreates with a non-white person. At a dinner conversation, one might remark, “Obama’s mother was complete white trash (i.e. she miscegenated with a non-white).”

    People at first might be confused by the usage of these words – but they will quickly catch on and enjoy the in-group elitism.

    Other suggestions:

    – Whites in the U.S. should call themselves ‘European Americans’ and not ‘Whites’. It sounds more UC.

    – European Americans should create genealogy clubs stressing their European heritage

    – Above all else, European Americans should do what they can to discourage miscegenation

    P.S. These are not my ideas. They were gleemed from other sources so feel free to use them as your own.

  12. Use this comment:

    I am in agreement with Alex Kurtagic. Those in white-advocacy cricles need to present themselves in a more favorable light.

    In that vein, I recommend a return to traditional elitist vocabulary. We should co-opt certain words for our use.

    Here are some examples. Use the following words in their pristine sense:

    Aristocracy: Someone of pure European blood. At a dinner conversation, one might remark, “He’s an aristocrat in the true sense (i.e. of pure European blood).”

    Gentleman: Someone who’s a white advocate, someone who supports preserving the white race. At a dinner conversation, one might remark, “He’s a gentelman (i.e. a white person who gets the race question and supports the interests of his own race).”

    White Trash: A white person who procreates with a non-white person. At a dinner conversation, one might remark, “Obama’s mother was complete white trash (i.e. she miscegenated with a non-white).”

    People at first might be confused by the usage of these words – but they will quickly catch on and enjoy the in-group elitism.

    Other suggestions:

    – Whites in the U.S. should call themselves ‘European Americans’ and not ‘Whites’. It sounds more UC.

    – European Americans should create genealogy clubs stressing their European heritage

    – Above all else, European Americans should do what they can to discourage miscegenation

    P.S. These are not my ideas. They were gleaned from other sources so feel free to use them as your own.

  13. “Pure European blood” alone doesn’t make an “aristocrat”. Now thats kinda silly.

  14. I’ve never liked “European American.” It is a PC term like “African American” or “Native American.” I use the word “White” because it strikes fear and loathing into the heart of the enemy.

  15. I’m actually a bit surprised that the masters of discourse have chosen to call us “White”, given the positive connotations of purity and cleanliness which are innately associated with the word. It’s like in the elementary school scene of A Conversation about Race.

    Besides, I’m not European. I’m fond of firearms, loud women, fast food, and Jesus.

  16. Most of you may not be old enough to remember the old saying, “Free, White & 21”. 🙂

  17. @14 No. Only 15 % to 20% of the Pennsylvania Dutch were Amish or anabaptists/adult batists. The other 80% to 85% could best be described as Protestant. All the Pennsylvania Dutch came to the US to get away from the Roman Catholic forces that invaded the western German states and the Rhine Valley.

  18. I agree that to encourage and empower pro-White elites is everything, because on the most important issue “the people” are already there, but in vain as policy is made above their heads and against them.

    Hat tip to the Corner (National Review Online) for these two links with empirical evidence that that is so: a href=”http://cis.org/ElitevsPublicOpinion-ImmigrationViews”>(link) a href=”http://cis.org/Usurpation-Elites-People’sWill”>(link). Old stuff (2002 and 2006), but there is no reason to think it has become less valid.

    Link 1: Elite vs. Public Opinion: An Examination of Divergent Views on Immigration: “While it has long been suspected that public and elite opinion differ on the issue of immigration, a new poll provides the most compelling evidence yet that there is an enormous gap between the American people and “opinion leaders” on the issue. The survey also suggests that the gap between the public and elites has actually widened since the September 11 terrorist attacks.”

    Link 2: Immigration and Usurpation: Elites, Power, and the People’s Will: “Some legislators had also mentioned to us (oftentimes laughing) how they had “defanged” or “gutted” anti-immigration bills and measures, by neglecting to fund this program or tabling that provision, or deleting the other measure, etc. “Yes, we passed that law, but it can’t work because we also…” was a usual comment to assuage the Mexican delegations.”

    What’s happening is top-down. If unpopularity was enough to stop it, it wouldn’t be happening and it would never have happened.

  19. 18Hunter Wallace

    I’ve never liked “European American.” It is a PC term like “African American” or “Native American.” I use the word “White” because it strikes fear and loathing into the heart of the enemy.

    I like to mess with liberals and tell them that it’s racist to call them Native Americans, you should call them by their tribal name.

    I don’t like the hyphenations because in a way it delegitimizes America, its history and its culture. To a lesser degree saying White American does as well, you are saying that it’s acceptable for non-Whites to be American, when at its founding and for the majority of its existence this hasn’t been true. Like saying White Germans or White British, but that’s the miserable state we’re in, so our hand is forced and we must state language that is distinct and clear.

    In that sense too, saying White isn’t always enough, as Jews, other non-Europeans and racially mixed people may be incorrectly labeled White. This is especially bad in Latin America where White includes anyone that is even slightly Caucasoid.

    That is where Nordish preservation comes in, setting the bar higher, and appropriate in the context of the founding populations of the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa.

    For reasons of simplicity and common understanding, White will continue to be used in America. However as you continue to have conversations with people it’s important to expand on the subject of race.

  20. Maybe I’m wrong about this, it’s always a bad sign when you disagree with HW, but I really hate the term “White”.

    The term invites confusion, because in the absence of the appropriate historical [American] context it makes it seem as if we’re only concerned about skin color and not ancestry. It also invites the question of just who is White, because there are white looking peoples from certain non-European ethnic groups (e.g. certain peoples of Middle Eastern or Northeast Asian extraction can have a skin coloring that looks rather white). These kinds of things make it easier for the establishment to deconstruct any kind of meaningful identity built around Whiteness in the minds of our people.

    Perhaps “European-American” isn’t the right term, but I’ve noticed that leftists appear noticeably uncomfortable when I stress my Anglo-Germanic European heritage. I am fully convinced that they would much rather have me talk (and think) in terms of Whiteness than in terms of something that conveys more information about my ancestry.

  21. I think “European American” is superior to “white.” European American not only stresses race but also ancestry.

  22. “I think “European American” is superior to “white.” European American not only stresses race but also ancestry.”

    Why not “ethnic American”, i.e. those whose ethnicity is “American”?

  23. The term invites confusion, because in the absence of the appropriate historical [American] context it makes it seem as if we’re only concerned about skin color and not ancestry.

    That’s the difference between using the lowercase and uppercase, white is just a reference to skin color, it’s descriptive, White is the race, at least Caucasoid or Europoid (used in this context by certain anthropologists like Coon and Baker), but better defined as exclusively European. The core and foundation of which should always be Northern Europe, with the periphery being Mediterranean. This is taken for granted by most people instinctively, at least in the British colonies and Northern Europe.

  24. Nicholas Heller wrote: Much as I appreciate someone standing up for us much-beleaguered WASPS, it’s pretty late in the day to be choosy about what kind of whiteness we want. It’s also a little silly. Frankly, this race-vs.-ethnicity issue is only a problem if we let it become one. White Americans are a new ethnicity, one created by a mixing of the peoples of Europe, with a heavy Anglo-Saxon flavor.

    and

    In any event, we American whites, WASP and non-WASP, all have much more in common with one another than the various European ethnicities who have been squabbling for centuries. Most white Americans regard other white Americans as people like themselves, regardless of their particular ethnicity. I just don’t think it’s going to pose much of a problem for us – certainly we have much larger ones. In short, here in America, our race IS our ethnicity.

    I completely agree with this take, and have made these points myself many times. There are a relative few who are purely of any one ethnicity in America anymore. The melting pot worked beautifully as long as the immigrants came from various Euro-tribes. They could and did assimilate and intermarry with other whites. They adopted our language and largely, our folkways. They know nothing other than being a white American, of whatever ethny. I agree that Americans became a new hybrid white ethny and have far more in common with each other than their cousins in Europe, and practically all have some portion of NW Euro ancestry. Besides, with the dire numbers game we are facing, to tell someone who is partially or wholly Mediterranean or Slavic (but still American) that they’re not welcome in the white tent, when we face hordes of non-whites is clearly self-defeating.

  25. A good article by Professor Fraser.

    Hunter’s post and some of the comments noted that the percentage of white Americans who are solely of Anglo-Saxon descent is not overwhelmingly large. Nonetheless, the vast majority of white Americans are of Northwestern European descent, and a substantial percentage have a significant degree of Anglo-Saxon ancestry. Contrary to the claims made by some people, white Americans are not a pan-European mass.

    Today, ‘WASPs’ are a minority, not much more than 10% of the population

    It depends on how you define “WASP.”
    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/01/white-anglo-saxon-protestant.html

    The melting pot worked beautifully as long as the immigrants came from various Euro-tribes.

    No. The “melting pot” is a Jewish construct.

  26. From The Conquest of a Continent by Madison Grant:

    pp. 1-4

    American public sentiment regarding the admission of aliens has undergone recently a profound change. At the end of the nineteenth century a fatuous humanitarianism prevailed and immigrants of all kinds were welcomed to “The Refuge of the Oppressed,” regardless of whether they were needed in our industrial development or whether they tended to debase our racial unity.

    The “Myth of the Melting Pot” was, at that time, deemed by the unthinking to be a part of our national creed.

    This general attitude was availed of and encouraged by the steamship companies, which felt the need of the supply of live freight. The leading industrialists and railroad builders were equally opposed to any check on the free entry of cheap labor. Restrictionists were active, but in number they were relatively few, until the World War aroused the public to the danger of mass immigration from the countries of devastated and impoverished Europe.

    As a result of the problems raised by the World War, a stringent immigration law was passed in 1924 and is now in force. This law has for its basic principle a provision that the total number of persons allowed to enter the United States from the countries to which quotas have been assigned shall be so apportioned as to constitute a cross section of the then existent white population of the United States. This is the so-called National Origins provision.

    A controversy immediately arose over this new basis, as it was to the interest of every national and religious group of aliens now here to exaggerate the importance and size of its contribution to the population of our country, especially in Colonial times. This was particularly true of immigrants from those nations, such as Germany and Ireland, the quotas of which were greatly reduced under the new law. The purpose of this opposite was to warp public opinion in regard to the merits of various national groups and to exaggerate the non-Anglo-Saxon elements in the old Colonial population.

    This book is an effort to make an estimate of the various elements, national and racial, existing in the present population of the United States and to trace their arrival and subsequent spread.

    In the days of our fathers the white population of the United States was practically homogeneous. Racially it was preponderantly English and Nordic. At the end of the Colonial period we had a population about 90 per cent Nordic and over 80 per cent British in origin. In spite of the intrusion of two foreign elements of importance, both nevertheless chiefly Nordic, our population and our institutions remained overwhelmingly down to the time of the Civil War. Since that time there has been an ever-increasing tendency to change the nature of this once “American” people into a mosaic of national, racial, and religious groups. The question to what extent this transformation has gone deserves careful study.

    The draft lists for the American army in the large cities during the World War showed an amazing collection of foreign names. These lists are most dramatic indications of the substantial modifications of the original Anglo-Saxon character of the population which have occurred. A vivid illustration is found in a war poster issued by an enthusiastic clerk of foreign extraction in the Treasury Department during one of the appeals for Liberty Loans. A Howard Chandler Christy girl of pure Nordic type was shown pointing with pride too a list of names, saying “Americans All.” The list was:

    Dubois
    Smith
    O’Brien
    Ceika
    Haucke
    Pappandrikopulous
    Andrassi
    Villoto
    Levy
    Turovich
    Kowalski
    Chriczanevicz
    Knutson
    Gonzales

    Apparently the one native American, so far as he figures at all, is hidden under the sobriquet of Smith, and there is possibly the implied suggestion that the beautiful lady was herself the product of this remarkable mélange.

    Similar foreign names are beginning to appear and sometimes predominate in the list of college graduates, successful athletes, and minor politicians. In the words of the late President Theodore Roosevelt, we are becoming a polyglot boarding house.

    The modification of the religious complexion of the nation also is very striking. In Colonial times Americans were almost unanimously Protestants. Now the claim is made that one in seven is a Catholic and one in thirty is a Jew. To what extent this change is due to immigration and to what extent the differential birth rate should be carefully considered.

    p. 152

    It is probably accurate to say that there never has been a nation which was so completely and definitely Protestant as well as Nordic as was the United States just after the American Revolution.

    pp. 153-154

    Nine-tenths of the whole white population of 1790 was therefore Nordic in race, and ninety-nine hundredths of it Protestant in religion. It was all English-speaking, save for the little island of Pennsylvania Dutch, and for the French and Spanish on the frontiers. It was all living under a political and cultural tradition that was characteristically British.

    p.157

    At the close of the period ending in 1790, despite the loss of many valuable elements at the time of the Revolution, the American race was homogeneous and Scotch and English to the core. It was bursting the bonds of the old frontier and ready to pour a human deluge over the mountains and inundate the West.

    p. 221-222

    In 1860, at the end of the period, we find the essential elements of national unity still unchanged, but we were about to engage in a fratricidal war, which was to destroy the best blood of the nation. We had admitted large numbers of Irish and German immigrants who impaired, in the case of the Irish, our religious system and introduced certain undesirable racial elements. The Germans who came were largely Protestants and only temporarily disturbed our unity by clinging to their foreign language. Both of these elements, however, were predominantly Nordic, and it was not until the next and final period that the unassimilable Alpines and Mediterraneans came here from southern and eastern Europe. The tragedy of the Civil War and the introduction of cheap labor were still to come, so that in 1860 the United States was at its high-water mark of national unity.

    pp. 223-224

    The period 1860-1930, with which we are now dealing, is characterized by the end of free public land in the West about 1880. It also marked the great development of industries in the North and East, which created a demand for cheap labor, and attracted a mass immigration of non-British and non-Nordic workmen from southern and eastern Europe. This immigration for the most part went to the cities and industrial districts.

    The Southern States, which had not entered upon an industrial expansion before the Civil War, did not welcome immigrants of the low-grade factory type, hence the South has remained characteristically American. One of the strange results of the Civil War has been that while the victorious North sold its birthright of culture, religion, and racial purity for a mess of industrial pottage, the South, though defeated and impoverished, retained its racial inheritance unimpaired.

    Some of the earlier immigrants in this period sought the lands in the West, while they were still to be had. The land hunger having carried most of the energetic, ambitious, and able Nordic immigrants westward, the industrial expansion of New England, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and of some of the adjacent States resulted in an unfilled demand for low-grade factory labor in the East. The demand was quickly recognized by the steamship companies, which began scouring Europe for immigrants to transport to America.

    The most fertile recruiting ground for this type of humanity was in South Europe, Italy, the Balkan countries, and the provinces of the then Austrian Empire and Russia. Inducements were offered to potential immigrants to come to America. There was no discrimination as to type or quality. Many criminals were rounded up, especially in southern Italy and Sicily, with the connivance if not the actual initiative of their governments.

    pp. 224-225

    It was in this period that the Polish Jews began their tumultuous and frantic invasion, a flood which only recently has been checked, and that with the greatest difficulty.

    pp. 226-227

    Meanwhile the immigration from northern Europe declined, not only relatively but absolutely, and at the same time the native American, whose ancestry was predominantly Nordic, began to be crowded to the wall. In certain sections of New England that progressive change soon became all too evident and has made them no longer American but foreign communities. The French Canadian, Irish, and Poles took over whole districts and occupied the abandoned farms. The Polish Jews, settling almost entirely in the larger cities, built up a Ghetto population similar in most respects to the congested urbanism of their homeland.

    Americans were so obsessed with the idea of a “Refuge for the Oppressed” that they even welcomed the draining into our country of that morass of human misery found in the Polish Ghettos. When the objection arose that there were already 1,000,000 Jews in New York City, an effort was made to divert this migration to Texas, where the wide-open spaces were supposed to provide room for 7,000,000 Polish Jews.

    p. 232

    The northern Italians are well thought of in the countries to which they have gone. The southern Italians seem to be far inferior in quality. While the country of their origin, Magna Graecia, two thousand five hundred years ago was the source of a large part of the world’s progress in civilization, it is doubtful whether the reader can name a single man produced in that region during the last two thousand years, whose ability or eminence was such as to give him a worthy place in the world’s history.

    Add to this that the United States did not receive even the best of the southern Italian population, but in some instances rather the part that the local authorities were most happy to get rid of, and it is easy to understand how the Italian children in the American schools have shown themselves in almost every test to be a group apart, widely separated from every other white racial group and close to the Negro-Mulatto children in their ability.

    p. 234

    Taking a long view over the whole history of immigration into the United States in the century and a half before 1930 one sees that approximately half of the total was from the countries of northern and western Europe, which are largely and some distinctly Nordic in population, and which sent us people who, in most cases, were easily assimilated by the Native Americans. Most of these came in during the first century of the Republic’s life, as pointed out above.

    pp. 278-280

    The three millions of Whites of 1790 have increased to 109 millions in 1930. Of this number, one-third are either foreign born or the children of such. One wonders how many of the 109 millions are the undiluted descendants of Colonial stock. While mathematical exactitude cannot be expected in such calculations, the census experts have figured that about one-third of the population is of such ancestry.

    There are many others who have one parent Colonial and the other going back perhaps to an immigrant of 1850. Such latter, these experts claim, is the equivalent of half of a Colonial descendant. Two of them together they count as equivalent to one Colonial descendant. By this device the experts calculated that the “numerical equivalent” of the Colonial stock amounts to nearly one-half of the entire white population.

    The investigations necessary to put the National Origins provision into effect, and to defend it from partisan criticism, brought out the salient facts concerning the composition of the population today – again, of course, subject to such margin of error as is inevitable. The white population of 1920 was apportioned as follows:

    England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland 39,242,733
    Germany 14,833,588
    Irish Free State 10,378,634
    Poland 3,626,692
    Italy 3,566,396
    Russia 2,108,283
    Sweden 2,024,434
    France 1,970,189
    Netherlands 1,835,959
    Czechoslovakia 1,623,438
    Norway 1,431,292
    Austria 976,248
    Switzerland 961,406
    Belgium 790,928
    Denmark 735,083
    Hungary 703,409
    Yugoslavia 440,518
    Finland 338,036
    Lithuania 293,100
    Portugal 272,104
    Greece 185,836
    Rumania 185,423
    Spain 181,658
    Latvia 144,844
    Turkey 138,389
    Danzig 81,522
    All other quota countries 262,216
    Non-quota countries 5,488,757

    The United States is no longer 99 per cent Protestant, as it was in 1790; but it is still 80 per cent Protestant. Its white inhabitants are no longer 90 per cent Nordic, as after the Revolution; but they are still 70 per cent Nordic. Its future course must be guided in light of a consideration of these facts.

  27. In the excerpt from pp. 1-4, I left out the word Anglo-Saxon in the following paragraph. I apologize for the error.

    In the days of our fathers the white population of the United States was practically homogeneous. Racially it was preponderantly English and Nordic. At the end of the Colonial period we had a population about 90 per cent Nordic and over 80 per cent British in origin. In spite of the intrusion of two foreign elements of importance, both nevertheless chiefly Nordic, our population and our institutions remained overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon down to the time of the Civil War. Since that time there has been an ever-increasing tendency to change the nature of this once “American” people into a mosaic of national, racial, and religious groups. The question to what extent this transformation has gone deserves careful study.

Comments are closed.