Race or Mongrel, by Alfred P. Schultz

That's French for "the ancient system," as in the ancient system of feudal privileges and the exercise of autocratic power over the peasants. The ancien regime never goes away, like vampires and dinosaur bones they are always hidden in the earth, exercising a mysterious influence. It is not paranoia to believe that the elites scheme against the common man. Inform yourself about their schemes here.

Re: Race or Mongrel, by Alfred P. Schultz

Postby admin » Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:59 am

CHAPTER XX: THE YELLOW RACES

In many respects the Chinese are superior to the whites. Their family life is purer. Children respect their parents more. Age is more respected. Agriculture is held in the highest esteem. Nowhere is the soil more perfectly tilled than it is in China. The landowner who does not till his ground loses it. There are no landsharks in China. The canonical writings of the Chinese are not attributed to divine inspiration, and they influence the life of the Chinese more than the Scriptures influence ours. Every sentence of the Chinese canonical writings can be read in an English family without causing offence. The same cannot be said of the Scriptures.

Tshang-Ki-Tong, in "La Chine et les Chinois," expresses the conviction that Chinese ethics are in practice, if not in theory, purer than European or American morals. The Chinese never neglected education, and have evening schools for those who cannot attend during the day. Chinese merchants enjoy the highest respect for their probity. Alcoholism is almost unknown. Centuries of conscious effort have practically eradicated it from the country. In the year 2285 B.C., a man was banished for having discovered the means of obtaining alcohol from rice. In 2200 B.C., the Emperor Yu declared that wine will drive kings out of their kingdom, and prohibited its use at his court. When China attempted to stamp out the opium habit, the Christianity of England prevented it (Opium War). Much has been written concerning the corruption of the Mandarins, but this corruption, as depicted by those best informed, is not greater than the American home product.

The Chinese are prohibited by ancient laws from marrying members of another race. This prevents degeneration. This gives China its remarkable stability. It is the only country that has had an existence of five thousand years.

The Chinese are not inferior to the Japanese. Mang-Tse says: "I have heard that the barbarians have learned from China, but never that China has learned anything from the barbarians." "Until our own time this has been true. China was to the surrounding nations, Thibet, Burmah, Siam, Annam, Corea, and Japan, what Greece was to Rome and to Western Europe. It gave to these nations its ethical teachings, its system of writing, and its political and social organizations. For centuries China was the instructor of these countries and the alma mater of their scholars " (Von Brandt).

Physically the Chinese are superior to the Caucasians. They are industrious, intelligent, temperate, and superior to the Slavs by far. They have no nerves; nothing fatigues them; they prosper in every clime, and they work in the torrid zone as well as in the arctic circle. Colonel Grandprey, of the French legation, states in the Revue de Paris that the Chinese are excellent army material. They are long-lived, rarely sick, indifferent to exertion and suffering, intelligent and obedient.

Chinese women are not too lazy to give birth to children and not too lazy to nurse them. It is true that young children are frequently killed in China. So are they in Europe, and so are they in America. White mothers kill more children in utero than they give birth to. In Japan and in China one hundred and thirty-two children out of a thousand die before they are one year old; in the white world this number is two hundred to three hundred out of a thousand. This high death-rate has its cause. Probably the drugs which many white mothers take in order to kill their child before its birth cause the child to be born with diminished vitality. Many white mothers are too lazy to nurse their child. God and nature ordained that mother's milk is the child's nourishment. Many women think that a patent powder does equally well. There is no substitute for mother's milk. We have no right to point the finger of scorn at China. It is the story of the mote in the other man's eye.

Economically the Chinese are underestimated. China has millions of the best workers in the world. They have no nerves, they are never tired, and can be had in limitless numbers for a third of the wages of Europeans. China has more than four hundred million inhabitants, which means one hundred million workmen. Artisans, miners, and agricultural labourers get about ten cents a day. As soon as the industrialization of China is complete, the whole yellow market will be lost to the Western world; and the neutral markets will be won by the goods which are as well made and much cheaper than the European productions.

The result will be an enormous decline in wages everywhere in the world. Pene-Siefert states, in "Jaunes et blanc en Chine," that the time is rapidly approaching in which the white man will not be able to sell anything at all in China. Paul Leroy-Beaulieu thinks that our grandchildren will curse us for having forced China to become an industrial country. Richthofen calls the industrialization of China, on the part of Europe and America, a suicidal process. The industrialization of China, however, cannot be checked.

"Where Europeans and Americans leave, Japanese take their places, to teach the Chinese to compete with English factory girls and artisans " {Daily Chronicle). "The slumbering factors of an immense industrial production exist in China" (Richthofen). Her resources are unlimited. Her soil is very fertile. She has in close proximity the most extensive mines of iron and coal in the world. The "Open Door Farce" is not worth discussing. It is a trick of incapable statesmen to open doors, every now and then, on little pieces of paper. The Chinese are born merchants. Maier calls them the best merchants in the world. The commercial centres of the East, Hongkong, Shanghai, Kiautchou, Hayphong, Saigon, Singapore, Bangkok, Penang, and Colombo would dwindle into insignificance if the Chinese were to leave them. The Chinese are good seamen. The crew of most of the ships that ply in the Indian and Pacific Oceans are Chinamen.

The Japanese have proved that they are not mere imitators. Japanese physicians made important medical discoveries. Doctor Kitasato, the assistant of Behring and Koch, discovered the germ of bubonic plague; Doctor Shiga discovered the bacillus of dysentery. The commerce of Japan with China is growing rapidly, at the expense of the commerce of other countries. Japanese goods are very much cheaper, and they can be carried to China in a very much shorter time than they can from America or Europe. The white world will never be able to compete with Japan for the commerce of China. The Japanese are a race closely allied to the Chinese race, and they therefore understand and can satisfy the wants of the Chinese much better than we can. At the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese war, the Japanese pretended to fight for the open door principle. The truth is, that Russia kept the door open in Manchuria, and Japan closed the door promptly when she acquired Formosa. Moreover, the Japanese officials restricted the white merchants to such an extent that they were soon forced out of business.

China will do on a much grander scale what Japan has done on a smaller scale. China will adopt steam, electricity, railroads, telegraphs, telephones, and manufactures of all kinds. Japan taxed all articles which foreigners exclusively consume one hundred to four hundred per cent. Will China not do likewise, in order eventually to expel the hated white devils, without enforcing exclusion laws? If as many Americans went to Japan as Japanese are coming to America, they would be in the position of pariahs, and be treated as such. The feeling against foreigners is very strong in Japan, and they are doing their best to stimulate the feeling of hatred and distrust that the Chinese entertain for the white man.

That the Japanese are dangerous competitors, the Californians know. There the Japanese have monopolized the flower and fruit trades, and in the clothing branch they are gaining the upper hand by forcing the Jews out. Their sweat-shop methods are worse than those of the Jews. The hop and sugar-beet fields, the ranches, the orchards, and the vineyards are filled with Japanese labourers. Some time ago there was war between the Italian cobblers and the Japanese cobblers, and prices were cut savagely, until the Japanese had gained the upper hand. Almost all curiosity shops are owned by Japanese. They own much real estate in California, whereas in Japan the law prevents foreigners from holding real estate. Most of the Japanese in California have come from Hawaii, where they have forced the white element out of most industries. The same yellow cloud hangs over California.

It is scarcely possible to overestimate the economic yellow peril. Samson-Himmelstjerna states that on account of its old culture, its severe morality, its unlimited resources, its intelligent, industrious population, China will surprise the world even more than Japan did. In fifty years, Sir Robert Hart declares millions of Boxers, soldiers as good as the Japanese and equally well drilled and equipped, will be ready to fight for China. General Frey ("L'Armee Chinoise") thinks that China, in a short time, will be able to wage war successfully not only against one Western country, but against a coalition of the powers.

In the meantime Japan has undertaken the reorganization of the Chinese army and navy. Hundreds of Japanese officers are in China as military instructors, and hundreds of Chinese officers are studying in Japanese war-schools. Japanese officers are the instructors in the military schools of Peking, Canton, Paotingfu, and Wutshang. Thousands of Chinese students are studying in Japan. Japanese newspapers are printed in Chinese and spread broadcast all over China. The Japanization of the East is rapidly progressing.

In 1899 the Toadoboun-kai was founded (Eastern Culture Society). Its aims are, develop race consciousness, cherish race traditions, and proclaim and bring about the solidarity of China, Japan, and Corea. This powerful organization is presided over by Prince Konoye, brother of the Emperor of Japan, and president of the House of Peers. The watchword "Asia for the Asiatics" is a weapon used in a hundred centres at once. Religion is pressed into service. Buddhistic high priests meet in Tokio, in order to unite the different sects in a common cause.

In India the Mahabodhi society represents their views. Hostility to the Christian missions is the common cause. The propaganda is anti-Christian, that is, anti-white, and therefore very powerful. In Siam the Japanese influence is as powerful as it is in China. Japanese officers are the councillors of the king and Japanese officers are in the navy of Siam. The Japan-Siamese society of Tokio and Bangkok is doing for Siam what the Eastern Culture Society is doing for China and Corea.

It has been said, "When China's military education by Japan has in a measure been accomplished, let Europe beware."

Why Europe? Europe is overpopulated, its soil tilled for centuries. Its mines are not very rich; indeed, many of them are exhausted. Europe is at the farthest distance from East Asia, most difficult to reach, and can protect herself best. The yellows can acquire better possessions, with less risk and trouble. The islands of the Pacific, Australia, and parts of the two Americas are the places they covet. Who is considered their arch enemy by the yellows? Professor Jonizu, of Tokio, tells us, and his fellow countrymen as well as the Chinese agree with him. That enemy is the United States of America. Several centuries ago the English and the French wanted nothing but vermin in South America, and they expelled the Dutch from Brazil. To-day, it is we who want nothing but vermin on that continent. That the vermin will not for ever be lord of that beautiful land is evident. We want no decent white neighbours in South America; possibly we shall in time have decent yellow neighbours.

The military abilities of the yellows are greatly underestimated. It is forgotten that Ghenghis Khan collected armies that were superior in numbers to those of the modern great powers; that he carried death and destruction to every place he went; that his armies destroyed five million lives. It is forgotten that the lame Timour was victorious in thirty-five campaigns and led his yellows to Moscow. The battle with the Tartars is forgotten, in which the German knights repulsed the Asiatics before the walls of Liegnitz. It is forgotten that the yellows ruled Russia for several centuries. It is forgotten that in the eleventh century A.D. the Chinese were about to introduce universal conscription.

The hatred that the yellows entertain for the white races, especially the American, is intense. The Bushido spirit is not dead in any of the yellow races. Is there a military yellow peril? Yes, and it is greater than the economic yellow peril. It is more imminent than we think. And it is against America that it is chiefly directed. At present the Pacific is a Japanese lake. Our position is similar to that of Russia before the war.

The yellow peril does not consist in their great number, but in their moral and physical superiority. We are their superiors intellectually only, and that intellectual superiority is becoming smaller every day. The yellow peril can be met only by making ourselves the moral, physical, and intellectual superiors of the yellows. A strong race must be created here; our family life must become purer; children must be taught to respect their parents and old age. Women must not murder their children, either before or after birth. Alcoholism must be stamped out. We must become able, if we are not, to do our own work. If we leave it for all times to the immigrants, we shall finally be compelled to call the coolies to do it for us.

The nervous system alone does not make a man, nor does it make a nation. A strong, muscular system must support that nervous system, or something is wrong. Let us build more ships. Men-of-war assure international courtesy. The conviction that the opponent is strong, powerful, and well armed has a tendency to preserve the peace. It frequently takes the edge off a crisis. The soothing syrup and lollipop of the eternal peace maniacs is impotent.

The empire of the Mikado to a Japanese is a spiritual empire as well as a material empire. The Mikado is the religious head of the nation, typifying the Bushido (war spirit) of the people; and the aim of that spirit is to satisfy Bushido, the god of war. Where will war be found? The American is the most hated of the white devils, and fifty thousand men are working day and night in the arsenals to perfect the equipment of the army and of the navy. Twenty thousand men are at work day and night in the cartridge factories. Every day hundreds of shrapnel-shells are stored away.

"Why such daily cast of brazen cannon
And foreign mart for implements of war?
Why such impress of shipwrights, whose sore task
Does not divide the Sunday from the week?
What might be toward, that this sweaty haste
Doth make the night joint-labourer with the day?"

-- Hamlet.


As the yellow terror is threatening us, and will probably soon be at our throats, the propaganda of the peace maniacs is pernicious. The Hague farce is a disgusting spectacle. It is based on lie, bluff, hypocrisy, and cant.

England proposes limitation of armaments. A few centuries ago Holland shared the control of the ocean with England, and there was no other sea power. For reasons akin to those for which England waged the "Opium War," she made war on Holland. In the war the Dutch proved themselves good seamen and good soldiers. Holland, however, being not a nation, but a fragment of a nation, was not strong enough to prolong the struggle indefinitely, and, when exhausted, she had to yield. England ruled the waves. This was the time when England claimed that the seaboard of other countries was her boundary.

Now the ocean has become free to all people. English supremacy cannot be maintained. America, Germany, France, and Japan share the control of the ocean with England. England still predominates, and she wants the status quo preserved. She cannot accomplish that end by making war on any of these powers; for, even if victorious, her opponent will have dealt her such blows that England will have ceased to be a great sea power. For this reason England has become unctuous, and recommends disarmament. She claims that the English navy alone is for defence; all other navies are for the purpose of attack and aggrandizement. England, therefore, should police the sea, and nations should cease building ships.

Past history does not warrant us in believing that England would police the seas impartially; and, even if she did, we must decline to become her vassal. Germany declines, France declines, and Japan declines. Let England disarm, if she so wishes; let us build ships. The peace conference is a farce, and it is folly to send men to take the part of clowns in The Hague circus.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 32961
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Race or Mongrel, by Alfred P. Schultz

Postby admin » Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:06 am

CHAPTER XXI: THE ANGLO-SAXONS

"This happy breed of men, this little world,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England."


The history of England is the history of the Anglo-Saxons. It therefore commences on the Continent; for as Arnold says, "The English are wholly unconnected with the Romans and Britons, who inhabited this country before the coming of the Saxons, and, nationally speaking, the history of Caesar's invasion has no more to do with us than the natural history of the animals which then inhabited the forests."

A glance at the map of Europe, at the accession of Augustus, indicates chaos in Northern Europe and order in Rome. The chaos in Northern Europe, however, was merely political as the order in Rome was merely political. Racially the North was homogeneous, Rome was a chaos. The German tribes of Europe then differed from one another not more than the people of Hanover differ from the people of Westphalia, Bavaria, or Holland to-day. The Romans classified the German tribes into two main divisions, the Suevic tribes and the Saxon tribes. Among the Saxon tribes they reckoned the Cherusci, Saxons, Vandals, Chattuari, Chaucii, Frisii, and others. More than two hundred years before Hengist and Horsa put out for England, the Cheruscans, Saxons, Angrivarii and other tribes had coalesced, and they were all known as Saxons.

Extreme individualism characterized all people of the Teutonic race. The individual is everything. His person and his liberty are sacred. He will not disappear in a mass. In the herds of Slavic, post-Roman, and post-Hellenic mongrels, the individual disappeared. They counted as masses only. The greater the race jumble became, the less important and the more worthless became the individual.

The Teuton is a personality. He has self-respect and commands the respect of others. Contrast his rough worth with the depravity of the post-Roman Italiot. His manliness, his bravery, his spirit of personal freedom, his loathing of pollution and meanness, his domestic virtues, his love of home, his respect for women, and the purity of his women. Elsewhere women were considered incapable of judging of higher things; among the Germans, duties of the highest kind were entrusted to their care. They were nurses to the sick and wounded, they were the preservers of the medical knowledge and of the sacred runes.

Teutonic women handed down to us some of the songs of the Sagamen, among others the Niblung or Volsungen Saga, which, while inferior to Homer in execution, has other excellencies which make it in many respects superior to the Greek masterpiece. The German Nibelungenlied (the German Iliad) of the twelfth century is still a great epic, but has lost some of the grandeur of the old tale. Thus Brynhild, the heroine of the Volsungen Saga, the most fascinating heroine that ever figured in poetry, disappears in the later epic as the clown does in King Lear. In both epics, however, breathes the Titanic temper which belongs to the Teutons.

Tacitus points out the important part played by the women in the life of the Germans. Two characteristics which chiefly distinguish them from all other races are their respect for women and their chastity, and their independence and love of personal liberty as far as was consistent with the liberty of their equals.

The Teutonic religion was in accord with the high spirit of the race. The gods and life after death were to them not theories, but convictions; more than that, they were an internal experience. There was no death. Death was a transition, a thoroughfare, and scarce that. There was nothing about death that changed their character, their tendencies. They were not through fear of death subject to bondage. They knew that five minutes after death they would be what they were five minutes before death. Why, then, should they yield to any power whether of earth, or of heaven, or of hell?

Cry out for quarter? Never! Neither to gods nor Nornes. Defy destiny, and the Nornes must cringe. We, the bravest of men, are invincible. Fate must falter. Our life was short, but was it not beautiful? Have we not been valiant men, and have we not loved brave women? And when death comes, does the Valkyr not carry the fallen hero to Valhalla? What kind of a place will that be? It will be as we and the gods make it. Who will be over there? We and the gods. Whom shall we meet? The gods and our ancestors, the best of men.

Life after death was with them not an open question, it was a self-evident truth. To them "God was closer than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet." Entertaining such convictions, many preferred not to live to the last stage, —

"That ends this strange, eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything."


They were not willing to go out like a snuffed candle, and they wrote death runes on their own breasts and wrists. They knew that the day prophesied, the day of Ragnarok, was sure, when they became the equals of the gods, when, shoulder to shoulder, the gods and they should fight the brood of evil and destroy it. In the combat they themselves will perish with their gods; but has Wodan, when god Balder the beautiful died, not whispered in Balder's ear the word " Resurrection? " The gods will return greater than before, and the brave will outlive the dusk of the gods? (v. Note.)

These were the men and women who were the ancestors of the English as well as of the Germans. Their chief vice was their excessive desire for independence, which led them to split up into little tribes, every tribe suspicious of its next neighbour. The Romans recognized that Teutonic strength alone could break Teutonic strength. They therefore fostered jealousies among German families and tribes, and fomented dissensions and wars among them. By the employment of craft, duplicity, insinuations, and bribery they set one German tribe against the other. Thus they were successful in having the Bructeri destroyed by the neighbouring tribes.

It was part of the subtle policy of Rome to systematically corrupt young Germans, who had either been persuaded to go to Rome, or who had been carried to Rome. On these Rome conferred rank and privileges. In Rome many Germans persuaded themselves to believe that Rome and civilization were synonymous terms; that the civilization of the German tribes was desirable; and that, therefore, the Romanization of Germany was a necessity, not a calamity to be striven against, but an opportunity eagerly to be sought. It was an insidious system that Rome employed, and it helped Rome gain many advantages over the Germans. The mongrel was very crafty and cunning, and Rome extended her frontier from the Alps to the Danube and to the Rhine.

Had Rome been successful in Romanizing the Germans there would never have been a Germany, never an England, never a United States. A herd of worthless pan-Europeans, such as infested Rome, would have infested all of Europe; incapable of withstanding the attacks of the Mongols, Saracens, Huns, and Turks that at different times attempted the subjugation of Europe, and who would have destroyed the Aryan races, had Teutonic strength not expelled them. The resistance of the Teutons to Rome was therefore the most momentous struggle of history, and in it the Saxons took the chief part.

Between the years 12 and 9 B.C. Drusus made four campaigns in Germany, in all of which he fought principally with Saxons. Cassius Dion tells us that in his fourth campaign Drusus was stopped near the Elbe by a German woman, a prophetess, who bade him return, and warned him that he was near his grave. The Valleda spoke the truth. On his return Drusus fell from his horse and died. To Tiberius was now given the command of the Roman forces in Germany. He had to wage war almost constantly against the tribes of Northwestern Germany. In the year 4 B.C., he advanced with a large army to the Elbe, while Roman fleets, sailing from Gaul and Britain, cooperated with the land forces. After this, peace prevailed for a number of years. It was the calm before the storm.

In the year 6 A.D. Quintilius Varus became governor of Germany. He attempted to Romanize the Germans, as the Gauls had been Romanized before. He believed, as many now pretend to believe, that all men (that were not Romans) were born equal. He had been proconsul of Syria before he came to Germany; and, accustomed to govern the depraved Eastern mongrels, thought that he might with equal impunity make himself "master absolute" of the Germans.

While this subjugation was attempted, the avenger of his people's wrongs, Herman, a prince of the Saxon tribe of the Cheruscans, was being raised up. He had served in the Roman army, and had been raised to the rank of the equestrian order. He had remained unbought by money and privileges, uncorrupted by the Roman poison. He was conscious of the power of Rome. He knew that the Roman legions in Germany were the best that Rome had, veterans in the highest state of equipment, officered by the most skilful of Roman generals, and ready to move instantly on any spot where a popular uprising might be attempted, and that half of Germany was occupied by Roman garrisons and covered by Roman fortifications.

The Germans, on the other hand, were ill-armed and undisciplined, without a single walled town, and without military stores. They had never stormed a fortification. There was no hope of foreign aid. The task of liberating Germany seemed hopeless. Nevertheless it was attempted. Herman, and other leaders of Northwestern Germany, formed a conspiracy and swore death to every Roman on German soil. To encounter the legions in a pitched battle would have been a suicidal undertaking. The Germans were ill armed and had no defensive armour. The Romans were fully equipped with helmet, cuirass, greaves, and shield. Stratagem was therefore indispensable. In order not to arouse the suspicion of Varus, the German chieftains continued to frequent his headquarters, until Herman gave the tribes the secret order to take up arms and collect near the Weser and Ems.

In order to quell the insurrection, Varus marched his legions thither. When he reached the Teutoburg forest, the time of the Germans had come. Woods, marshes, and ravines rendered the march difficult, and heavy rains increased the difficulties. Here the Germans fell upon the Romans. Here the battle was fought which decided the history of the world more than any other, either before or since. It was the bloodiest butchery which had yet befallen the Romans. The battle lasted three days. On the second day Numonius Vala attempted to escape with the cavalry of which he was the commander. The Germans intercepted the squadrons; the horsemen were overpowered and slaughtered to the last man. When all hope of success or escape had vanished, Varus fell upon his own sword, to escape captivity. The Roman infantry still held out. At last, on the third day, in a series of desperate attacks, led by Herman, the columns were broken through and the Romans either fell sword in hand or perished in the swamps in their effort at flight. Those who laid down their arms in hope of quarter were massacred on the spot. The few that were taken prisoners were offered up at the altars of the German gods.

Klopstock has the bards sing this hymn after the battle:

"Herman outspoke: 'Now victory or death.'
The Romans: 'Victory.'
And onward rushed their eagles with the cry.
So ended the first day.

"'Victory or death,' began
Then first the Roman chief; and Herman spoke
Not, but homestruck; the eagles fluttered — broke.
So sped the second day.

"And the third came — the cry was 'Flight or death.'
Flight left we not for them who'd make us slaves —
Men who stab children. Flight for them? No. Graves.
'Twas their last day."


At about the same time that the Romans were defeated in the Teutoburg forest, the Roman garrisons were cut off throughout Germany, and within a few weeks the Romans were driven out of the country. Never was victory more decisive, never was the liberation of an oppressed people more complete. Rome was in an agony of terror. Suetonius tells us that even months after the battle, Augustus, in grief and alarm, beat his head against the wall and exclaimed, "Quintilius Varus, give me my legions back."

So great was the horror of the Romans, that they believed a number of terrific portents to have occurred at the time. The summits of the Alps were said to have fallen. Many comets blazed forth together. The statue of Victory, pointing toward Germany, had of its own account turned around and now pointed to Italy. The Romans recognized the importance of the German victory. And indeed, as the result of this battle, the face of the world was changed. By it were determined the characteristics of our own time. Its narrative forms as much a part of the national history of England as it does of Germany. For it was the fatherland of the English which the brave Teutons there rescued, and many of the men who fought in the battle were ancestors of the men and women who, four centuries later, crossed the German ocean to take possession of England.

Herman himself was a Saxon, for the Cherusci were a Saxon tribe; and with the Angles and Saxons came to England the spirit of Herman and of the old Saxons. It can be traced throughout England's history, and it is alive to-day. Herman is the one hero who belongs to all the Teutonic peoples; for, without that battle in the marshy glens between the Lippe and the Ems, there never would have been a rejuvenated Europe, and the race which is the greatest that the world has produced would have been destroyed by Roman promiscuity. That the Anglo-Saxons considered Herman as one of theirs is evident from the fact that traces of the divine honours that were paid to him for centuries in Germany are found also among the Anglo-Saxons, after their settlement in England. During the middle ages his fame survived both among the Germans and among the English, (v. E. C. Creasy, "Decisive Battles.")

In the year 15 A.D. Drusus, the son of the first Germanicus, attempted to avenge the terrible defeat sustained by Varus. With eighty thousand men he invaded Germany. He had no less than a thousand ships built to cooperate with the land forces. Drusus marched his army to the Teutoburg forest, and, in gloomy silence, the men passed the place of the awful carnage. Naked skulls stared down on them from the branches of the trees. The altars on which Roman centurions had been sacrificed to the gods were still standing. Drusus had the ghastly relics of the legions of Varus buried and had funeral honours paid to them. He advanced farther into the country and was met by Herman. A battle was fought, in which the Roman losses were so great that he resolved on retreating across the Rhine. Rome abandoned all hopes of ever avenging the death of Varus. Herman had secured the independence of the Teutonic race for ever.

When Drusus withdrew his legions, he had one legion retreat by land, and embarked with the others, in order to return to the Rhine by way of the North Sea. The fleet met with a severe tempest. Tacitus says: "A number of the ships went down, a greater number were driven out of their course to distant islands, and, as the islands were uninhabited, many of the soldiers perished of hunger. The trireme of Drusus ran ashore not far from the land of the Chauci. Day and night Drusus wandered about the rocks and projections of the coast, and accused himself of having caused the destruction of the fleet. It was with difficulty that his friends prevented him from seeking death in the same sea." While the misfortune that their fleet had encountered intimidated the Romans and scared them from the North Sea, it had the opposite effect on the Saxons. It awakened their naval genius, which so far had slumbered, and which was henceforth destined to play a most important part in the development of the world. They saw that the Romans were not able to cope with the northern gales and the uncouth northern sea. They saw, from the misfortune that the Romans had suffered, that the Roman vessels were not suitable for the North Sea, and their reason told them that their own imperfect boats were likewise inefficient.

They had to invent forms and constructions suitable to their needs. They succeeded in this in a remarkably short time. They soon became the terror of the coasts of Gaul and Britain, and the Romans had to recognize that, on the sea, they had found their master. As early as 47 A.D., the Romans experienced this. Gannask, a Saxon, led piratical expeditions to Gaul. The brave Saxon's name struck terror into the heart of Corbulo, the Roman governor, and he had Gannask secretly poisoned. The remarkable rapidity with which the seamanship of the Saxons developed is incontestably proved by the boat found in the Nydamer Moor in Schleswig. It is a perfectly seaworthy boat. It is certain that the Saxons used the sail very early, and that they discovered how to sail close to the wind, and to tack about.

Claudian, in "De laudibus Stilich, II," has Britannia say:

"Illius effectum curis, ne litore tuto
Prospicerem dubiis venturum Saxoni ventis," —

[Google translate: The effect of that induce his subjects to the shore in safety,
Prospicerem uncertain future Saxon winds,]
 

Fear the Saxons, even though the wind is against them. The Edda makes mention of this discovery, which the Saxons kept secret for centuries.

In the year 70 A.D. the Batavians, Frisii, and the Kaninefates, a Saxon tribe, rose against the Romans. The war began with unheard of fury. Whole cohorts of Romans were cut down; whole legions were made captives, and their prefects and centurions were killed. Brinno, a Saxon, unexpectedly attacked a Roman camp from the sea, cut the garrison down, and sacked the camp. The Romans considered their fleet endangered, and concentrated it in the Rhine. Brinno attacked it, and took all the twenty-four ships. Then Cerialis, the Roman commander, secured the aid of the Roman fleet from Britain. Again the valiant Saxons attacked it and sunk or took most of the vessels. A few days later the Romans suffered another naval defeat. The Saxons boarded the ships, overpowered the crew, and took the vessels. The ship of Cerialis they presented to their prophetess Velleda.

In the third century the Saxons undertook piratical expeditions, not only to Gaul and Britain, but into the Atlantic. They visited Spain, went through the Strait of Gibraltar and sacked Tarragona, laid Syracuse under contribution, made a landing in Egypt, sacked the cities on the coast of Greece, and returned. Their naval ability Hengist and Horsa and their followers took with them to England; and, like the spirit of Herman, it can be traced throughout England's history and is as alive to-day as ever.

Teutonic seamanship is superior to the seamanship of other races. This is shown by the fact that, provided the disparity was not too great, Teutonic seamen were never vanquished except by Teutonic seamen. In her naval wars with the Latin nations, England very rarely suffered defeat, and that only when the disparity was very great. Usually the English were victors, whatever the disparity of numbers. In England's wars with the Hansa, the Dutch, and the Americans, she was defeated as often as she was victorious. It takes Teutonic strength to break Teutonic strength.

As the decomposition of Rome increased, it had to leave Britain to herself. According to Saxon sources, Vortiger called Hengist and Horsa to aid him against the Picts and Scots. They defeated Vortiger's enemies; and he, in order to hold them in England for his protection, allotted them lands. Hengist and Horsa saw that the land was fair, and called other Saxons to Britain, in order to conquer the land they coveted. The Celts had to yield to them the south of Britain. This decided the fate of England; for it was the spirit of Herman, the spirit of the Saxons, that made England the power to which Rome in the height of her glory is not to be compared. It is this spirit that made England the ruler of the waves. The racial characteristics of the Saxons differ as much from the racial characteristics of the Celts as the history of England differs from the history of Ireland.

It was in the year 449 A.D. that the three Saxon "keels" landed in England. Gildas says: "A multitude of whelps came from the lair of the barbaric lioness." They soon seized the land for themselves. Their conquest was the complete displacement of one people by another. The land was gained by the edge of the sword. They destroyed everything that Rome had left so completely that now there is no trace that a Latin speech ever was spoken at any time in England. The Saxons tell us that the Britons fled before them as from fire. The wars were wars of exterminations. It was a struggle for life and death. There was no blending of Saxons and Celts. Nowhere did the conquerors and the conquered live on side by side as the Lombards and Romans did in Italy.  

It is true that the Saxons spared many women. It is true that British blood was infused into the English. But the quantity was so small that nature soon expelled everything Celtic that was out of harmony with the tendencies of the Teutonic race. The Celtic element does not exist in the English makeup. It was absorbed; and it is for this reason that the Celtic blood had no effect whatsoever on the national being of England. The English are as Teutonic to-day as they were in the time of Herman. When they came to England, they displaced the Britons everywhere. They accepted nothing from the Britons, neither language, customs, traditions, nor religion.

The conquest was a gradual one, spread over several centuries, so that the little British blood that was inoculated could be completely absorbed before more of it was injected. It was only after most of the land was thoroughly conquered, that is, after the old inhabitants of most of the land had been destroyed, that the Teutonic invaders began to carry on their conquest in such a fashion that death or flight was no longer the only alternative for the Britons. At this stage the Teutonic element in England was so strong that a slight infusion of British blood was no longer of racial importance. Moreover, the sentiments of Saxons and Celts were such as to prevent intermarriages.

It is for this reason that the conquest of England was never completed. A large part of Britain remained in Celtic hands, and the ancient race, their language, their customs, their traditions, lived on. A part of the island still speaks its ancient speech. Very gradually Wessex extended her dominion at the expense of the Britons. At first the Britons were either killed or forced to flee; later the Saxons were content with bringing them into subjugation. As late as the time of the laws of Ine (675-693) the Britons were considered an inferior class, an inferiority which their legal status expressed. The Briton's oath was of no value against the Saxon's word. A Briton's life was not considered as being of much value. This different legal status again had the effect of preventing any large infusion of British blood into English veins. The Britons were absorbed slowly. There never was promiscuity. By the time of Alfred (871-901), Wessex had become purely English.

It seems as if the naval genius of the Saxons had succumbed during the centuries of the conquest of England. For centuries we hear nothing of their seamanship. They seemed to have forgotten the time in which they were a power on the ocean. It was another Teutonic tribe that aroused them. The Danes visited England, and devastated the country, for the Saxons had neither ships nor seamen to oppose them. The Scandinavian incursions continued until the time of Alfred.

Alfred recognized that the Saxons would be able to navigate as soon as they were aboard. He therefore had war-vessels constructed by Frisian workmen from designs made by himself; and, as early as 872, in the second year of his reign, the Vikings were defeated off the coast of Dorsetshire. At first Alfred's crew consisted of Frisians. When, however, twenty-five years later, the sea-king Hasting, after he had sacked Wight and Devonshire, was met by an English fleet, the vessels that defeated him were manned by Englishmen. Alfred's fleet is the beginning of the English navy. He roused the old Saxon spirit, and England continued to develop it until she became the mistress of the ocean.

The Normans, finding the Saxons strong on the element they considered their own, now turned to Gaul, and in 912 took possession of Normandy. Not content with Normandy, the Normans coveted England, and in 1066 Duke William, with about sixty thousand men, crossed the channel. The English navy, by a strange fatality, could not be there to intercept him. He landed on the 14th day of October, 1066, and the hostile forces met near Hastings. A harder battle was never fought in England. The Saxons were defeated, and William became king of England. The history of England after 1066 is not the history of a new race. Normans and English sprang from the same parent stock; and although they had become differentiated to an extent, the deviation was not yet great. Nevertheless, several centuries passed before they were completely blended. The infusion of Norman blood was no crossing, and consequently did not interfere with the development of the English race.

The Normans brought a Roman tongue with them; the English language, however, did not become Latinized. It is true that, of the words in the English dictionary, only one-quarter are original English words. The number of words between the two covers of a book is, however, of very little significance; the words used in speaking and writing alone are of importance, and the words so used, the words of the Bible, of literature, of the street, of business, of the fireside, include all the Teutonic words and only a very small number of the other words. About ninety per cent, of the words used in an ordinary book are Teutonic words. In scientific treatises the number of Anglo-Saxon words is very much smaller. Scientific men of every Teutonic nation still prefer semi-Latin to their mother tongue, and the pseudo-scientists find a Latin word or a Latin phrase most convenient to conceal the absence of a thought.

Most of the English idioms are Teutonic, and many are common to both the German and the English languages. They cannot, in spite of slight deviations, deny their common origin. Thus, the German is blind as a "mole," his English cousin is blind as a "bat;" the former is "over his ears," the latter "over head and and ears," in love. The German girl is as "homely as night," the English girl as "homely as sin;" the former is as cold as "ice " and hands him a "basket," the latter is as cold as a "cucumber" and hands out "mittens." The German is "outside of himself," the Englishman is "beside himself." Later, the former laughs "in the fist," the latter "in the sleeve." The former has "his hand in the game," the latter only "his finger in the pie." The former "escapes with a blue eye," the latter with "a black eye." The German takes time by "the top lock," the Englishman by the "forelock." At last the German "bites the grass," the Englishman "the dust." Both cross the bar, and the former goes to the " great army," the latter to the "majority," and so forth. Not only are all the words that are in common use Teutonic, but the words of foreign origin must conform themselves to Teutonic usage. English is therefore in every respect a Teutonic language.

In 1204 England lost Normandy. This was a fortunate event, for thereafter the prejudices that the Normans entertained against the English abated. Normans and English recognized that there were no essential differences between them, that they were one race, and one people.

Teutonic people were always characterized by their love of independence and the love of their free institutions. A loss of these could never be more than temporary; and it was the assertion of this spirit which forced King John to grant the Great Charter, which provided that:

"No free man shall be imprisoned or proceeded against except by his peers or the law of the land.

"Justice shall neither be sold, denied, nor delayed.

"All dues from the people to the king, unless otherwise distinctly specified, shall be imposed only with the consent of the National Council."

The charter rendered secure to the English the free institutions, which had been theirs since time out of mind. It was this same spirit that dethroned Edward II, and the same spirit that demanded the emancipation of the working classes.

It is the same Anglo-Saxon spirit that in Scotland resisted the English. Scotland resisted because it refused to become a part of England on unfair terms. "Scotland," says Carlyle, "is not Ireland. No. Because men arose there and said, ' Behold ye must not tread us down like slaves, and ye shall not, and ye cannot.'" They might have added: "For we are Saxons, like yourself."

Part of England was at an early time detached from England to form a part of Scotland, and it is from this southern part of Scotland that the Anglo-Saxon character and the English language spread with English blood over Scotland. It is from this southern, Anglo-Saxon Scotland that the stubborn resistance against England came. The Celts of Scotland, the Scots proper, had nothing to do with it. Bruce, Hastings, Balliol, and the other brave men that Carlyle alludes to, were essentially Englishmen. The Anglo-Saxons of Southern Scotland had adopted Scottish names and had acquired a patriotism hostile to England. That, however, did not change their race. And the Anglo-Saxons of England found it impossible to impose conditions upon the Anglo-Saxons of Scotland which they themselves would have refused to accept. It was on just and equal terms only that Scotland became a part of England. It is from the Anglo-Saxon Scotland that the great men of Scotland came.

The spirit of rebellion against authority is a trait of the Teutons. This same spirit, which characterized Luther, also characterized Wickliffe. Wickliffe's place in religion, in political history, and in the history of English literature is analogous to that of Luther in the history of Germany. The kinship cannot be denied. It was at about this same time that the merchant adventurers began to compete successfully with the Hansa. Here again it took Teutonic strength to break Teutonic strength. It was the Hansa spirit that animated the bold adventurers, for both were animated by the old Saxon spirit.

The reformation was preached. Its hero, Luther, was a man of a Teutonic race, and he found his followers chiefly among men of the Teutonic stock. In the time of Henry VIII steps were taken which made reformation in England inevitable. England entered the lists in the spirit of the new doctrine. England was its place of refuge in the gloomy days of the Smalkaldic war. Elizabeth ascended to the throne. Never did a greater monarch sit on any throne. Now the English Church was organized in the spirit of the reformation on the Continent, on a strictly national foundation.

This meant opposition to Spain. The power of Spain was then at its height. The resources of England to cope with it seemed most scanty. At her accession Elizabeth had found an encumbered revenue, a foreign war, a divided people, and a pretender to the crown. Many of her subjects looked upon her as an heretical usurper. England had no ally against Spain except the Dutch. Philip II desired to strike a decisive blow at England, the bulwark of Protestantism, and he fitted out his "Invincible Armada."

Again, as in the time of Herman, Teutonism and Latinism stood against each other. "The fate of humanity was in the balance," writes Ranke. It was the spirit of Herman, however, that animated England.

The spirit of the old Saxons was alive in Francis Drake, the "arch-pirate," the terror of every Spanish coast; in John Hawkins, in Martin Frobisher, in Lord Howard, in Walter Raleigh, and in the other brave mariners aboard the English ships. The English Catholics fought for their country as valiantly as the Protestants. The whole energy of Spain was directed toward the equipment of the Armada. In 1587 Drake dashed into the port of Cadiz and destroyed many of the Spanish ships. This delayed the sailing of the fleet for a year. In May the Armada sailed. It consisted of 129 large vessels, carried 27,755 men, besides slaves as rowers, and 2,431 cannons.

The ships of the royal English navy at this time amounted to no more than thirty-six; but, by the addition of merchantmen, it was increased to about one hundred and eighty vessels. These carried about eighteen thousand men, but they had not half the weight of the Spanish artillery, and were scantily supplied with ammunition and provision. In spite of the disparity of numbers, the English commenced the engagement. The English ships were so admirably handled that the Spaniards found it impossible to inflict any injury on them. For more than a week the English harassed the Armada, and had the ammunition held out, the English would have completely destroyed it. As it was, the injury inflicted was enormous.

The Spaniards, rather than face the English fleet again, resolved on retreating by the North Sea. Howard and Drake chased them for some distance northward, till the want of provision compelled them to return. "They left them," as Drake said, "to those boisterous and uncouth northern seas." Fifty-four shattered vessels reached Spain, and they conveyed only nine thousand men. " The Armada did not in all their sailing around about England so much as sink or take one ship, barque, pinnace, or cock-boat of ours, or even burn so much as one sheepcote on this land " (Drake). (v. E. C. Creasy, " Decisive Battles.")

Protestants were jubilant everywhere. With resounding steps England took the leadership of the world. Wealth and well-being increased, and commerce expanded. In a short time England's flag waved on every sea.

During the revolution, Cromwell, that epitome of everything Anglo-Saxon, saw that, if the country was to be kept together, it must be by decided measures which neither law nor constitution justified. He was not a zealot, yet he conducted a war of extermination against the Irish. He was not a tyrant, yet he expelled Parliament and made himself protector. He knew what England needed. He was cruel, it is true; but deliberate cruelty, when necessary, has always been, since the time of the Sagamen, a trait of the Teutonic races. And who will deny that they accomplished most where they were most cruel; as, for instance, the Anglo-Saxons in England, the Teutonic Order in Prussia, and the Anglo-Saxons in America?

After the revolution, in the consciousness of her strength, England dictated a law to the whole world, the Navigation Act. Since that time England has continued to expand and to increase in power and wealth. Not even the loss of her best American colonies weakened England materially. England attempted to force America to become a part of the English empire on unfair and tyrannical terms; she encountered, however, the same spirit that animates herself, the Saxon spirit, with its love for free national institutions, and consequently she failed. In 1782 England had to acknowledge the independence of her former colonies.

In the Napoleonic wars it was the spirit of the Saxons that led England from victory to victory. It was that spirit which ran up the signal, "England expects every man to do his duty." It was the spirit of Herman that fought with Wellington and Blucher at Waterloo. After the Napoleonic wars, England was supreme, and forced her will on the European powers. England's constitution represents the development of the old free national institutions of the Saxons. It is their spirit that made England the leader in the development of constitutional government. To this spirit are due the Great Charter, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the Bill of Attainder, and the Habeas Corpus Act.

The English colonial empire is not as old as its magnitude leads us to think. In Elizabeth's time there was not a single English settlement outside of Europe. All attempts at colonization, from those of Hore in the time of Henry VIII to those of Gilbert and Raleigh, had proved failures, and even in Ireland there were very few English colonists. It was in the eighteenth century that the English empire expanded to enormous proportions. The battle of Arcot, 1751, gave England control of Southern India. The battle of Plassey, 1757, permanently established the English power in India. As a result of the Seven Years' War in Europe and America, England gained an empire in America. Jamaica, Trinidad, and the Bahama Islands she took from Spain; South Africa, Guiana, and Ceylon from Holland. In the year 1788 England commenced to deport convicts to Botany Bay; to-day Australia is one of the leaders of Anglo-Saxon civilization. The same is true of New Zealand. At the time of Queen Victoria's accession, England had an area of less than 3,000,000 square miles; to-day more than one-fifth of the earth is under English rule. The English realm embraces about twelve million square miles. During Queen Victoria's reign about one hundred and fifty thousand square miles on the average were added every year to England's possession. Anglo-Saxon enterprise is now transforming Egypt.

The southern extremity of every continent is in one form or another in England's hands. Nearly all the narrow friths and straits are under English control. No ship can pass them without England's good will. The eastern passage from England to Japan is controlled by the following possessions: Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, the Suez Canal, Aden, Socotra, Ceylon, Singapore, North Borneo, and Hongkong. England expects to control the western passage to Japan, by way of the Panama Canal, as effectually as the eastern passage, by the possession of the chain of islands that stretches from Florida to South America, — the Bahama Islands, St. Croix, Anguilla, Barbuda, Antigua, Dominica, S. Lucia, Barbadoes, Grenada, and Trinidad, and by the possession of Jamaica and British Honduras in Central America, and Guiana in South America.

In South Africa England is not as strong to-day as she was before the Boer War. England, by destroying the homes of thirty thousand Boers, sacrificing twenty-two thousand of her own men, and spending more than one billion dollars, has succeeded in consolidating the Boers and in making them more powerful than they ever were before the war. The English bona-fide settlers (not the vagrants that gathered about Johannesburg) are supporting the Boers, because they recognize that the Boers knew more about the negroes than Downing Street.

Before the white man came to Africa, the negro's property and the negro's life had no value whatsoever; to-day the white man gives him protection. The white man builds streets and railways. The negro accepts and makes full use of these gifts, and does voluntarily nothing in return. In America and in Europe men are taxed; that is, they pay for the protection that the state gives them; in Europe every healthy man is in addition liable to military duty. There is no reason whatsoever why the negro should not be taxed so that he is forced to work. The English settlers agree with the Boers that work alone will raise the negro to that very moderate degree of civilization which he is capable of producing. They agree with the Boers that the English native policy is most pernicious. Is it not the height of folly that coolies are imported to do some of the necessary work in a country that abounds in healthy muscle?

The taxation of the white man is not considered a brutality; why should the taxation of the black man be considered a brutality? It is not true that the white man is taxed according to his income. He is taxed without regard to his income; and, in order to be able to pay that tax (in the form of the higher prices of food and other necessaries, such as rent), he is forced to work. If he cannot pay that tax, he becomes a vagrant, and soon lands in the penitentiary, where forced labour is exacted from him. Why a system of taxation, which is considered just in the case of the white man, is slavery in the case of the black man, reason fails to grasp.

The present system prevents the development of Africa. As long as the superiority of the white man is not recognized, as long as his superiority finds no adequate expression in his legal status, the white man cannot prosper in Africa. This system is not less detrimental to the black man; because it makes him, for the sake of theoretical considerations and liberality phrases, a lazy lout. It encourages slavery; for the negro, instead of working, forces his wives to work, and keeps them in most abject slavery. Probably reason will eventually prevail, for the good of the white man as well as for the good of the black man. The Teutonic genius has solved more difficult problems than the negro problem.

Vast as the English empire is, its boundaries do not mark the limit of England's power. Portugal has for generations been England's obedient vassal. Belgium and Holland, mere splinters of a nation, suffering from the paranoical delusion that they are complete nationalities, must on account of that delusion be the shield- bearers, the knaves of England. Spain is in the position of Portugal. The South American herds owe their national existence to England.

When Canning, referring to South America, said, "I have called the new world into being in order to establish the equilibrium in the old," he stated a fact. Many of these so-called republics, among them Chili, are England's vassals. Several of the Balkan states owe their nominal independence to England, and the pariahs of that part of the world are England's serfs. One of these countries is Greece. When the king of "independent Greece," Otho the Bavarian, refused to be England's "man," England secured his dethronement. Since then the Greek rulers have been on their good behaviour. France follows England's leadership, and in the Far East, Japan is doing England's work.

"England is a power to which, for purposes of foreign conquest and subjugation, Rome in the height of her glory is not to be compared," said Webster. At that time England's foothold in India was uncertain, the settlement of Australia, New Zealand, and Africa had scarcely commenced. To-day, with the expansion which took place in the last hundred years, the British Empire is the most extensive, the most populous, the greatest that the world has ever seen. More than seventy per cent, of the world's commerce is in its hands. In industries, in manufactures, in agricultural and pastoral pursuits, the British Empire is second to none. Sixty per cent, of the merchantmen of the world wave the English flag. As a naval power England is supreme.

In her literature, in her science, is readily recognized that fearless spirit of investigation, that spirit of rebellion against authority in religion as in science, which is the heirloom of all Teutonic races. Who can deny that a kindred spirit animates Darwin, Lyell, Livingstone, Tyndall, Spencer, Kant, Huxley, Haeckel, Shakespeare, Gothe, Wickliffe, Luther, Parker, Channing, the Dissenters, in fact, all Teutonic thinkers, and the Sagamen of old, who yielded to no power, who took a buffet from the "All Father" himself and returned it?

It is the doubting attitude of mind, which is as far removed from atheism as it is from superstition, that characterizes all Teutonic thinkers. They are, in a certain sense, all mystics; the deepest of Teutonic minds, Shakespeare and Gothe, not less so than the Sagaman of old. Compare Hamlet, Faust, and the old Teutonic songs. "Who knows God, who knows him not?" And is not this true also of Kant ("Critic of Practical Reason"), and of Spencer, when he declares that the one thing we know more certainly than anything else in the world is the existence of an infinite and eternal energy back of all phenomena, from which all things proceed; that this energy is akin to us; that that which wells up in us under the form of consciousness is of the same essence as this infinite and eternal energy? Is it not true of Huxley, when he says that, as an honourable scientist, if he were compelled to choose between Buchner and Berkeley, he would be obliged to stand with Berkeley? Is it not true of Tyndall, who tells us that it is utterly impossible to explain consciousness in any materialistic way; that the gulf between matter, force, and consciousness is as impassable in the height of modern science as it was to primeval man?

In literature and in science the old spirit is alive. England is great because Englishmen are great; Englishmen are great because the spirit of their ancestors is alive in them; and that spirit is alive in them because the blood that courses in their veins is the blood that rolled in the veins of the old Saxons. Never have Englishmen practised promiscuity, never have they vitiated their blood. This race purity makes the English the greatest and the strongest of races.

There are a few people the nationality of which is a biological fact. The English is one of them. In that sense the English dictum, "Once an Englishman, always an Englishman," is certainly true. Citizenship, allegiance to a country, is something external, superficial, temporary, and revocable. Nationality is something inborn, sacred, irrevocable. A little ink on a little piece of paper changes a man's citizenship. Nationality is changed only by destroying it. Men of a distinct nationality can become absorbed by another nation if that nation is of a strong race and sufficiently numerous. In that case several generations make the descendants of these men members of that other race. Nature expels everything that is out of harmony with that race. Where no such absorption is possible, nationality is destroyed by promiscuity alone; and it takes several generations of promiscuity before the destruction is complete. Change of nationality in the latter case always and without exception leads to deterioration, degeneration, and ultimately to utter depravity. The mongrel is worthless.

Allegiance to a state is a matter of convenience and of choice; nationality is a matter of necessity. It is the epitome of the capacities, tendencies, and labours of many generations. Nationality is infinitely better than citizenship, just as blood is better than ink.

The English became great, because they remained true to themselves, true to their race instincts. Their conservative adherence to race, their repulsion of foreign races, is the source of their greatness.

The innate qualities of the race have, in peace and war, won imperishable glory. Who can doubt that its future will be as great as its past?

Note.

"Then comes another,
Yet more mighty.
But him dare I not
Venture to name.
Few farther may look
Than to where Wodan
To meet the wolf goes."

-- The Edda.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 32961
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Race or Mongrel, by Alfred P. Schultz

Postby admin » Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:21 am

CHAPTER XXII: THE ANGLO-SAXONS IN AMERICA

The difference between the racial characteristics of the Anglo-Saxons and Latins expresses itself in the difference between their respective colonial histories. The Latins sought adventure and gold; the Anglo-Saxons a new home, a home where they could be independent men and women. On the North American continent the Spaniards never gained a secure footing, and the French had to yield to the superiority of the English.

It is not mere courtesy that leads the world to call a small island Great Britain. It is the independent, enterprising spirit, and the common sense of the English race, that has made the small island great. Their Saxon spirit came with the English to America. In the year 1607 the first permanent English colony in America was established on the coast of Virginia. The energy and determination of John Smith made the enterprise a success.

The year after this enterprise was undertaken another band of emigrants went out from England. They went to seek religious freedom. King James had declared that he would make all men conform to the Established Church, or harass them out of the country. Accordingly those who did not conform were persecuted, fined, imprisoned, and beaten. After sixteen hundred years of Christianity, Holland was the only place in the world where these nonconformers were free to worship God according to their convictions, where they were at liberty to think their own thoughts.

In the neighbourhood of Scrooby, a village in Nottinghamshire, Postmaster William Brewster, William Bradford, John Carver, and others had organized, an independent church with John Robinson for its minister. They were considered outcasts, and they became convinced that, so long as they remained in England, they could never be safe from persecution. They decided to emigrate to Holland. They made their headquarters in Leyden, and there, under the leadership of Robinson, they flourished and prospered. The Dutch did not hinder them from living their own life.

As the years went by they recognized clearly that they would become absorbed by the Hollanders, lose their nationality, and cease to be Englishmen. They recognized that the loss of nationality is the most direful misfortune that can befall the individual, and makes it impossible for a race to develop in its own way. They recognized that in the case of a strong race denationalization always spells deterioration. A number of the Pilgrims in Holland succeeded in obtaining from King James the privilege of emigrating to America. They decided to emigrate to America, in order to be among people of their own race and speech, where they could continue to develop the capacities and tendencies which were their heritage.

A London trading company agreed to furnish the Pilgrims passage, but the terms were so hard that the Pilgrims said the conditions were fitter for thieves and bondslaves than honest men. The London company took them over on the miserable little Mayflower. They started out for the northern part of Virginia, but drifted ashore north of Cape Cod. There they were free to shape their own government. Before landing, a number of the Pilgrims drew up this compact:

"In ye name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyall subjects of our dread soveraign Lord, King James, by ye grace of God, of Great Brittains, France and Ireland, King, defender of ye faith etc. haveing undertaken for ye glorie of God, and advancement of ye Christian faith, and honour of our king and countrie, a voyage to plant ye first colonie in ye northern parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly and mutually in ye presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civill body politick, for our ordering and preservation, and the furtherance of ye ends aforesaid; and by vertue hereof to enacte, constitute and frame such just and equall lawes, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices from time to time, as shall be thought most meete and convenient for ye generall good of ye colonie, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience."

(Signed by forty-one men.)

Landing at Cape Cod, they established a colony at Patuxent, since called Plymouth, on the basis of equal laws for the general good. The Pilgrims were hard-headed and practical men. They were ready to face all hardships for the sake of their convictions. They were ready to fight the Indians, the savage winter, and the barren soil. Yet, like their forefathers in the forests of Northwestern Germany, they were seers, visionaries, dreamers, and mystics. They dreamed of a better future, a better form of government, a greater freedom, and they set about to realize their dreams.

In the life of hardship that colonists meet, rank, title, and even learning count for nothing; for it is the steel in the blood, the race alone, that is of value. The first settlement of Plymouth numbered one hundred and one. The principal men were William Bradford, Miles Standish, Samuel Fuller, John Howland, and Edward Winslow. John Carver was the first governor.

A much larger number of Puritans settled at Salem. Charlestown, Boston, and Roxbury in 1628 and 1630. The men who settled Massachusetts brought with them the Teutonic desire to learn and investigate, and as early as 1632, £400 were granted for the support of a school at Cambridge. This school has grown into the most famous high school of America, Harvard University.

The little handful of men that came with the Mayflower created the mould into which this great republic has been run. They gave form to the government, and, for a long time, everything that happened to the country came along the lines which they laid down.

When the Pilgrims landed, the building of nineteen houses was considered necessary for shelter, but when seven were completed, there was no need of more, for half of the colonists had perished. Their former minister, Robinson, wrote to them from Leyden: " In a battle it is not looked for but that diverse should die. God, I hope, hath given you the victory after many difficulties."

In the first years, the Plymouth people were frequently on the brink of starvation. The poverty of the settlers was extreme. Bradford tells us, when newcomers had arrived that they were much daunted and dismayed. Some wished themselves in England again, and others fell a-weeping, fancying their own misery in what they saw now in others. Between 1620 and 1640 about twenty-two thousand Puritan emigrants sailed to America from English and Dutch ports.

The rule of the Puritans was stern and severe. Their government was theocratic, and no experience of the individual's life was free from the interference of public authority. Public authority ruled his person, his family, his religion. It was a grim rule of bigotry and intolerance. It was, however, not tyranny; for they themselves were the source of the authority of the government. They believed that their plan of government was not theirs, but God's, and that they obeyed the law of God. Their devout sincerity of purpose cannot be questioned. Their vices were the excesses of their virtues. They believed that the Bible was God's word; that the only rule of guidance, therefore, was conscience enlightened by the Bible; that, according to the Bible, the world was a fallen and an evil place; and that nearly all men were doomed to perdition. They were determined to save their own little selves.

The sole aim of life was to keep from folly and sin. Light heartedness was wicked. It was their creed that made them bigoted, austere, and harsh. Puritan men and women were grave and stern. Sumptuary laws forbade vanity of dress, gay manners, and light speech. Sober tints and quiet manners alone were tolerated. All revelry was prohibited. A dance was sinful; no one was allowed to own a pack of cards, or a set of dice; there was no theatre, no place for a public amusement of any kind. Late hours were forbidden. On Sunday all noise was hushed, all toil ceased, and all passing from place to place, save for necessity, was prohibited. Attendance upon public worship was compulsory. The Puritans were too austere in their mode of living, for, in their attempt to promote virtue, they chilled life. Yet, even with the Puritans, nature was stronger than theory, and there were outdoor sports and indoor games, and youngsters were youngsters.

The Puritans were intolerant. They imprisoned, persecuted, whipped, banished, and famished heretics. Does the Puritan rule for that reason deserve the contempt and the expressions of invective and abhorrence which have been visited on it? Were they more intolerant than the English Church, which persecuted Puritans, Catholics, and Quakers? When they assigned to infants "the coolest room in hell," were they more intolerant than Luther when he said, "Any man who holds that some of those not baptized escape perdition is a heretic?" When they persecuted heretics, were they more intolerant than Calvin when he burned Servetus at the stake? Were they more intolerant than the Inquisition, which burned many thousand heretics at the stake? What tolerance was there in the offensive language and in the insulting behaviour of the Quakers, who spoke of the people of New England as "cruel English Jews, the most vainest and beastliest place of all bruits, the most publicly profane and the most covertly corrupt?" Their intolerance does not render them more blameworthy than all men of the age. Their vices were the vices of the time, their virtues were their own.

The standard of morality among them was very high; and, as far as their bigotry and austerity was concerned, Puritanism produced the corrective influences which were constantly reducing its fanaticism. Puritanism favoured activity of mind. In their schools and high schools they offered the education which developed the great qualities of the race, and led them to test their principles. Liberalizing influences made themselves felt; and, toward the close of the seventeenth century, we notice that the old rigidity of doctrine no longer existed; manners and customs were less austere and the habits of life less harsh. This development continued and led, in the nineteenth century, to the most liberal theology of the land, that of Emerson.

In 1642, Lechford, an Episcopal lawyer, wrote of the colonists: "I think that wiser men than they, going into a wilderness to set up another strange government, might have fallen into greater error than they have done." The severest judges of the Puritans admit their noble qualities, — their full sincerity, their loftiness of purpose, their love of liberty, their fidelity and truthfulness, their intelligence and their good judgment.

The Puritans were, as Milton said, "faithful and freeborn Englishmen and good Christians, constrained to forsake their dearest home, their friends and kindred, whom nothing but the wide ocean and the savage deserts of America could hide and shelter from the fury of the bishops." With them came to America the Saxon spirit; and, when the colonists had to fight for free national institutions, it was Massachusetts that, with Virginia, became the leader against the attempted tyranny.

The Massachusetts of old is dead; Plymouth Rock has become a legend; scant courtesy is paid to the Pilgrims and the Puritans and their institutions. The men who allow the Puritan purposes a fair presentation are accused of partiality and hypocrisy. Contempt for the Puritans is considered their just desert. And yet these men laid the corner-stone of this republic. They determined the direction in which this great commonwealth had to develop.

In 1607 one hundred English settlers established the first English colony in America. This settlement was made at Jamestown, May 13th. To the colonists and their descendants were granted all the rights of natural-born Englishmen. The colony prospered, and in 1619 the first legislative body of North America met at James City. Like the Massachusetts settlers, the Virginians, animated by the same spirit, were friends of higher learning, and in 1693 "William and Mary College" was established.

During the Commonwealth in England many royalists fled to Virginia. Among them the ancestors of Washington, Jefferson, the Lees, Randolphs, and many other families. In 1716 Governor Spotswood crossed the Blue Ridge, and is said to have been the first white man to enter the Great Valley. The treaty of 1763 made the Mississippi the western boundary of Virginia.

Massachusetts and Virginia were the two centres from which Anglo-Saxon ideas and ideals spread with the Anglo-Saxon blood over the country. The men of the North represented the Teutonic character, in its austerity. In the Southern colony the sunny characteristics of the Teutons impressed themselves upon the land. The Virginians loved life. They were less introspective, less self-tormenting, but not less religious than the Puritans, though there was no bigotry in their religion. They were more amiable and not less energetic than the men of the Northern colony, and their force of character and will-power failed not to impress itself upon the future of the whole country.

Novels and histories, written with the intention of painting slavery blacker than it was, have depicted the Virginians as a class of cruel braggarts, drinkers, and gamblers. The very fact that Virginia has produced in the field of public service some of the greatest men of the country, among them Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Marshall, and the fact that, for half a century, in the council of the young republic Virginia's influence was preponderant if not dominant, gives the lie to these ballad-mongers.

There were very few cities in the colony, and these were small and of no social importance. The planters were little kings on their plantations, where stately men and lovely women ruled. As the plantations were far removed from one another, there were scarcely any schools. This fact did not in the least hinder Virginia to become socially the leader of the colonies, and to share with Massachusetts the political leadership when the war for independence broke out.

The Southerners' gaiety and love of life was not more immoral than the Puritans' austerity. Men and women led an outdoor life. They were fond of sport. They enjoyed horse-races, fox-hunting, cock-fights, boxing-matches, wrestling-matches, prize-fights, and boat- races. They enjoyed a dance, a game at cards, and a glass of wine. They drank a little too much at times, yet drunkenness was unknown at a time when in England no gentleman went sober to bed. They were ardent patriots, true friends, and honest enemies. In short, they were a race of noblemen.

The women were as high-minded as the men. They were fond of outdoor life. They rode from plantation to plantation, frequently danced from night till morning, to spend the next day on another plantation and continue the round of pleasures. They have been accused of loving amusement and of being fond of dress. (Some men assert, no doubt they are calumniators, that women elsewhere are also fond of these diversions.) Withal they were the best of wives and mothers. The men and women of the old colony were of a thoroughly healthy stock, and they produced a race that, at the time of the revolution, had not its equal anywhere. George Washington himself was a typical Virginian; not at all the cold, stiff, and tiresome individual that the textbooks call George Washington, whose last and only prank was the cutting down of cherry-trees. Washington, on the contrary, was very sociable. He was fond of a game at cards and a glass of wine. He played billiards, followed the chase, loved and bred horses. He was a good dancer, and very fond of it. His hospitality at Mount Vernon was equal to that of the other planters.

Although the State still bears traces of the brilliant life of the past, the Virginia of to-day is not the Virginia of a hundred and fifty years ago. The old Virginia is dead. The Civil War has made it a myth.

Virginia led in recommending to the colonies "intercolonial committees," and by these means the colonies took counsel together for common action. Virginia was the first to recommend to the other colonies an annual congress of delegates. In the War of Independence it took a leading part. At the close of the war the United States was deeply in debt. One way of paying it was through the sale of unoccupied lands. It was proposed that the States give up their lands to the Union. Virginia was the first to do this. In the War of 1812 and in the war with Mexico Virginia bore a conspicuous part. The Mexican War drew but very few volunteers from the North.

Between the beginning of the seventeenth century and its end, the immigration to America consisted almost entirely of Anglo-Saxons. There were a few Germans, a few Dutchmen, a few Swedes, and a few Frenchmen. Their number, however, was very small in comparison with that of the Anglo-Saxons. Most of them were of the race that is closest akin to the Anglo-Saxon race, i.e. the German. This kinship and the smallness of their number rendered their absorption easy. Their denationalization was not a deterioriation, for in a few generations they became Anglo-Saxons. In Pennsylvania, where many Germans lived, the absorption was slow, slow and thorough. There was no mongrelization, although the absorbent capacity of every race is limited, even in respect to a kindred race.

There is a very distinct difference between colonization and immigration. Colonization means, in addition to immigration, the creation of law, order, and customs. It includes the bringing of civilization. The same men are in one place colonizers, in another only immigrants. Thus Americans or Germans who go to Hungary are colonizers, if, like the brave Saxons of Transylvania, and the Suabians of Southern Hungary, they refuse to deteriorate into Magyars, if they refuse to disappear in the muddy Magyar swamp.

In England they are immigrants only. The men who came to America when it was a wilderness, the men who had to create law, government, and civilization in America, the men who established the country and impressed upon it the mould in which it had to develop, were colonists. The men who came later, who found a civilization here established, were immigrants merely. All men that came after 1783 must be considered immigrants. Immigrants are of value to a country if the immigrants are of a race akin to that of the inhabitants, and if their number is not greater than can be absorbed.

Excessive immigration is of the same detriment to the immigrant as to the native, for it destroys the race of both, and it reduces them both to a nondescript something-nothing mongrel without worth. The mongrel is everywhere worthless. All nature proves this, and the history of humanity declares not less distinctly the same truth. Why should a law of nature that holds good everywhere not hold good in America? Is it because Americans have pretty eyelashes or pretty teeth? Or is it because the advocates of unrestricted immigration do not like that law?

Estimates agree that by 1640 there were about twenty-five thousand colonists in British America, nearly all of them in New England and Virginia. Twenty-five years later the population had increased to about eighty thousand. For 1689 Bancroft's estimate is two hundred thousand. By 1740 the number had reached a million. In 1790 the first census was taken, and it found a population of 3,929,214, not including Vermont. After the first settlements the increase in population was almost entirely natural. In the hundred years between the end of the seventeenth and the end of the eighteenth century, the white world seems to have suffered from general exhaustion. The westward movement in America continued, but there was not the energy and rapidity in colonization that had characterized the period between the beginning and the end of the seventeenth century.

European colonies changed masters, but Europeans established no new colonies. In South America the seaboard only was held. In many places the Europeans yielded to the coloured races. The Bantus migrated to the Zambesi, and destroyed the Portuguese rule, while on the Guinea coast the natives pressed back the Europeans. The Dutch, who as early as 1680 had trekked to the Orange River, confined themselves to the vicinity of the Cape. Arabs and Persians conquered Mombas, Aden, and Ormudz. Zanzibar became a more important commercial centre than the European trading stations. In 1670 the French discontinued their attempts at the acquisition of Madagascar.

The Russians, who had conquered all of Siberia, and seemed near taking possession of Manchuria, by the treaty of Nertshinsk, relinquished their claims to the whole Amur basin. The Turks advanced for the third time upon Vienna.

A time of general exhaustion is not a time for emigration; and there was very little from Europe, very little to America. The immigration consisted of a small intermittent flow of newcomers, not at all sufficient to influence the race characteristics of the settlers. During the colonial period the population doubled about every twenty-five years by natural increase. The settlers married early, and were fond of children. Large families were the rule. Between 1783 and 1820 the immigration was likewise very small. Emigration at that time was not the free right of the individual, and permission to emigrate was frequently refused. The wars of the French republic and of Napoleon prevented almost all emigration from the Continent. During this time the United States was for many years on unfriendly and hostile terms with England, which prevented emigration from Great Britain and Ireland. On the other hand, there was very little in America to induce immigration, for times were hard, and embargoes and wars interfered with commerce.  

The number of immigrants between 1783 and 1820 was, according to the bureau of statistics, two hundred and fifty thousand. Up to 1820 the growth of the country was by natural increase, not by immigration; and its growth was so rapid that, after the close of the war of 1812, a new State was admitted every year: Indiana in 1816; Mississippi in 1817; Illinois in 1818; Alabama in 1819; Maine in 1820; and Missouri in 1821.

In 1820 the population numbered about ten millions. During the time of Anglo-Saxon America, the population doubled about every twenty-five years. It is therefore seen that without immigration the United States would now hold about as many people as it does with an immigration of more than 22,000,000 people and their descendants. Thus for 1820, 10,000,000 doubled every twenty-five years gives for 1845, 20,000,000; 1870, 40,000,000; 1895, 80,000,000.

Suppose the population had increased to 40,000,000 only. A country that holds 40,000,000 people of a strong race is better, stronger, and greater than a country that has 100,000,000 of a mixtum-compositum from everywhere. It is apparent, however, that immigration did not strengthen the country even in numbers, but simply displaced the earlier inhabitants. As long as this displacement was by members of another Teutonic race, the difference may not have been very great, although unlimited numbers even of a kindred race cannot be absorbed. When, however, members of the Teutonic races are displaced by South Europeans, Slavs of Southeastern Europe, and Slavic-Hunnish mongrels called Magyars, the displacement cannot but lead to the deterioration of the whole country.

The objection that it is a question of the survival of the fittest is of no validity whatsoever. The survival of the fittest is frequently not the survival of the best; surely not if, for the sake of theoretical considerations and liberality phrases, the best refuses to protect himself. In nature the survival of the fittest is not necessarily the survival of the best. The ass prospers where the horse dies. The coolie flourishes where the white man perishes. Yet no one has ever declared that the ass is superior to the horse, or the coolie to the white man.

Why did California have the Chinese exclusion act passed? Economic reasons were given, but were they the real ones? The Chinaman had been useful in developing the resources of the State; he was an excellent labourer in the mines; he had reclaimed marsh lands where malaria would have killed the white man; in the rural districts he was the only domestic servant that could be obtained. The Chinese did not compete with skilled labour; they took the drudgery. Economically the Chinaman was a benefit to California. It was asserted that the "Six Companies" exercised absolute authority over the Chinese, and that they assisted a coolie traffic. It was proved that the "Six Companies" were mutual benefit organizations similar to the Odd Fellows, and that there was no coolie traffic.

Personally the Chinese were more cleanly than many white people. They were hardy and their rate of morbidity and mortality was low. They smoked opium, but they did not drink. They were law-abiding, and very few of them were criminals. There was proportionally less criminality among them than among the white inhabitants; and the little criminality that existed was directed exclusively against members of their own race. Why, then, were they excluded? They were excluded not for economic but for racial reasons. The Californians, having seen Magyars and other yellow-white mixtures, either knew that the white-yellow mongrels were among the most worthless of mongrels, or their instinct told them the same truth. The desire of the West to keep people of the yellow races out of America has something instinctive about it. Racial, not economic reasons, cause the clamour against the admission of the Japanese. It is for this reason that it will not cease.

The Japanese, on the other hand, either because they have seen Magyars and people of similar breed, or because their instinct tells them that the mongrel is worthless, do not allow foreigners to hold property in Japan, on the supposition that people who are differentiated against by the law will not come to Japan, if they come, will not stay. Japan is poor and s money. Economically, therefore, the law is a bad one for Japan. The reasons for its existence are, however, racial, not economic.

In California the Mongolian blood was to a large extent excluded, while in New York it pours in freely under cover of a European name. From the yellows let us return to the Anglo-Saxons.

The Anglo-Saxons brought with them to America that love of independence and free national institutions which had characterized their forefathers in the Saxon forests, and which had accompanied them to England. Animated by that spirit, provisions for the liberty of the colonists were made. The charters given to the colonies contained the declaration that the emigrants to America should enjoy the same privileges as if they had remained within the realm. The colonial legislatures were under little or no outside control. The colonists governed themselves by their own laws, and pursued their interests as they thought best. At the outset they attempted to establish a state church, and this led to persecutions. The spirit of religious freedom, however, soon predominated, and after a short time men worshipped God everywhere in British America according to their convictions. England for a hundred and fifty years exercised a liberal policy toward the colonies, and their commerce grew by leaps and bounds.

When England began to oppress the colonies in 1764, it met that same Saxon spirit. In 1764 England subjected the colonists to taxation by the British Parliament. The colonists, not being represented, refused. They believed that taxation and representation were inseparable, and that freemen cannot be taxed without their consent.

Before 1764 there were reasons for dissatisfaction with English rule, such as the Navigation Act, which closed American ports against foreign vessels, obliging the colonists to export their productions only to England, and to import European goods solely from England and in English ships; and the subjection of all industries and manufactures that might interfere with those of England to unjust restrictions. Nothing, however, so aroused the colonists as the attempt to tax them.

In 1760 the attempt was made to collect duties on sugar and molasses. The duties were not paid. The custom-house officers applied for writs of assistance. The merchants opposed the application. James Otis argued eloquently in their favour. "Then and there," said John Adams, "was the first scene of opposition to the arbitrary claims of England. Then and there American independence was born."

When the Stamp Act was passed the colonies were full of indignation. The legislature of Virginia immediately adopted this resolution: "That any person who by speaking or acting should assist or maintain that any class of men except the general assembly of the province had a right to impose taxation, he should be considered an enemy to his Majesty's colony."

The determined spirit of the Americans rendered the enforcement of the Stamp Act impossible. In 1766 it was repealed. New acts of oppression, the imposing of duties on tea, glass, paper, etc., caused new indignation, however, and the stationing of troops in Boston increased it. In 1769 Parliament passed a bill directing the governor to send those accused of treason to England for trial. The legislature of Virginia immediately passed resolutions denying the right of England to remove an offender out of the colony. The governor dismissed the legislature. The members met, however, and agreed not to import any of the articles that England had laid a tax on. Their example was extensively followed.

In 1770 all duties except that on tea were removed. England shipped great quantities of tea to the colonies. In the colonies the sentiment prevailed that the tea must not be sold. In Charleston the tea was landed, but not allowed to be sold. In New York and Philadelphia the tea was not landed; the ships were sent back with their cargo. In Boston the "tea party" boarded the ships and threw the contents of three hundred and forty-two chests into the water. To punish the inhabitants of Boston, Parliament passed the Boston Port Bill, by which the port was closed and the seat of government transferred to Salem. In the following year Parliament repealed the Charter of Massachusetts by vesting all power in the Crown, and authorized the governor to send all persons accused of certain offences to England or some other colony for trial.

At the suggestion of Virginia, "committees of correspondence" had already been formed. In 1774 it was proposed that the colonies should send delegates to a general convention or congress. In September, 1774, this first Continental Congress met under the presidency of Peyton Randolph, of Virginia. This Congress passed the resolution to cease all importation from Great Britain, and organized committees to see that this resolution was enforced.

In Massachusetts the situation became alarming. Public speakers, such as the Adamses, Dexter, Hancock, Winthrop, Prescott Phillips, and others, boldly defended the right of the people to withstand oppression. The people collected arms and prepared themselves to turn out at a moment's notice.

On April 17, 1775, General Gates ordered a detachment of troops to destroy the military stores which the colonists had collected. The Americans resisted, and at Lexington the first blood was shed. In July, 1775, the Continental Congress undertook to organize the army, and appointed George Washington commander-in-chief. The army consisted of undisciplined men, unprovided with arms and ammunition, but they were brave men, animated by that spirit which was their heritage.

It is seen that Massachusetts and Virginia, that is, the colonies that were most homogeneous, assumed the leadership. In the dispute with England before the war, they were the leaders, and during the war they maintained this leadership by nature, as it were. In the war it became evident that the Saxon, in America as elsewhere, can swim as soon as he gets into the water, and that he can fight on the ocean as soon as he has a plank under him. Under Paul Jones with the Serapis the American navy achieved its first victory.

Independence was won, the constitution was adopted. It assured to the individual as much liberty as is consistent with the liberty of others. It did not destroy home rule and State rights, for it declared that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people; and that the powers not expressly granted to the central government nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.

The spirit that framed the constitution was akin to that which animated the Teutonic warrior of old, who pledged his sword not to any master, but to the master of his choice, and not unconditionally, but on conditions of his own. In 1790 the United States was a third-rate power. Twenty-two years later she coped a second time successfully with the strongest nation in existence.

In the war of 1812, it was the Saxon seamanship which led the little American navy from victory to victory against a nation that had heretofore no rival on the ocean. England had no rival on the ocean, because the Saxon spirit had made it the greatest sea-power in the world; but American seamen were able to defeat her, because they were animated by the same Saxon spirit. Out of fifteen naval engagements the Americans won twelve. Captains Porter, Hull, Decatur, Bainbridge, Lawrence, Perry, Stewart, and others won imperishable glory.

It was the same spirit that led Doctor Whitman across the continent, that made known the value of Oregon and settled within a short time three thousand Americans there.

Many Americans had made their homes in Texas. It was but natural for Saxons to rebel against Mexican rule. Texas won her independence.

In the war with Mexico the Americans won every battle, whatever the disparity of numbers. Several battles were fought against armies four times as large as the American forces, (v. Chapter XVI.)

Toward the middle of the nineteenth century the slavery question began to agitate the country. Massachusetts had a similar influence in bringing on the Civil War that she had in bringing about the Revolutionary War. The North held that the negro had the right to be as vicious and as lazy as his nature impelled him to be. The South denied this right. In 1860 the number of free States was eighteen: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, California, Minnesota, and Oregon; to which, in 1861, Kansas was added. The slave States were Virginia, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Texas, and Florida.

The population of the United States at this time was thirty-one million, of which the the slave States held twelve million. Among them, however, were four million slaves and two hundred and fifty thousand freed negroes, leaving for the slave States less than eight million white people. The population of the free States was nineteen million. Virginia was the greatest of the slave States. She was, however, curtailed by the secession of West Virginia.

There was a time when Virginia had furnished the Union with its ablest leaders; now Virginia furnished the Southern army with its ablest leaders, Lee, Jackson, Johnston, and Ewell. The South was numerically much weaker than the North, and it was still further weakened by the fact that Missouri, aside from Virginia, the most powerful slave State, cast her lot with the Union, and that three other slave States, Maryland, Kentucky, and Delaware, declared in favour of the Union.

The disparity in favour of the North in wealth, in resources, and in numbers was so great that the North believed that the rebellious States would be compelled to obedience in a short time. Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State, promised that the war would be over in three months. There was, however, one important factor in favour of the South, its homogeneousness. The Southerners were pure Saxons. There had been practically no immigration to the South. It was the Saxon spirit that made the resistance of the South so formidable that the war was not over in three months, nor even in three years. The war showed what heroic stuff the Southerners were made of.

The call for troops was answered by overflowing numbers, in the South as in the North. In April, 1861, the first blood was shed in Baltimore. The Battle of Bull Run opened the eyes of the North. The end of the second year of the war found the Northern and Southern forces in nearly the same position as at the beginning of the war. The Battle of Gettysburg was the turning point. The Southerners were defeated, but not without fighting a tremendous battle, in which they lost forty thousand men.

Although the population to draw from was much greater in the North, although the States offered bounties as a stimulus to volunteering, Congress was compelled to pass conscription acts very similar to those passed by the Confederate Congress. Draft-riots were the result, the most notable being the riots in the least homogeneous city of the land, New York.

Long before the end of the war, the financial conditions of the South were in a wretched condition. It could not issue and sell bonds. The expense had to be met by paper issues; and with each issue the value of the paper dollar declined, until one dollar in coin was worth fifty dollars in paper. As the value of the money decreased, the price of commodities increased. Flour was worth $270 a barrel, butter $16 a pound, and the price of other articles was equally high. The entire population was reduced to extreme poverty.

The difference in the financial condition of the North and of the South was great, and the difference in the number of men enrolled during the war was as great. The Union enrolled 2,778,304 men; while the Southern armies reached their greatest strength in 1863, when they numbered about seven hundred thousand.

When all is considered, it must be admitted that the South exhibited a much greater strength in upholding the rebellion than the North did in crushing it; that the Southern commanders exhibited an ability superior to that of the Northern commanders; that, in short, a homogeneous people is stronger than a race weakened by the infusion of blood from everywhere. Who can doubt that had the four Southern States, Missouri, Maryland, Kentucky, and Delaware, instead of joining the Union, making the disparity in favour of the North still greater than it was, joined the Confederacy, the South would have won the prize for which it fought, — independence?

After the war came the pernicious, preposterous attempt to make the South a black man's country; I to make the negro the ruler of the white man; to drive the white man out of his Southern home. That is what the unconditional enfranchisement of the negro meant. The spirit of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments made the white men of the South the bitter enemies of the negroes; it caused the Southerners to see in the victory of the Union only corruption and the destruction of their society, a government of ignorance, and an abominable abuse of power; it made the South the irreconcilable enemy, not of the Union, but of the party that saved the Union.

What was the effect on the negro? Has it made him better, more able, more industrious, happier than he was before the war? Not at all. The negro of to-day is in every way inferior to the negro of the time before the war. It is the white man's power, the white man's authority alone that in the South supports the negro, and prevents him from falling back into the state of utter savagery to which the liberated slaves of Hayti, Santo Domingo, and Liberia have returned. In spite of bills, resolutions, Constitution, and amendments, the negro in the South does not vote. The Southerners have succeeded in keeping the South what it was before the war, — a white man's country. The disfranchisement by constitutional amendment had that good result.

Since the war the growth of the United States in wealth, resources, and power has been remarkable, its progress and development phenomenal. Less than a hundred years ago the United States was not considered a factor in the politics of the world; to-day she is a world-power second to none.

Considering the history of the United States, this fact is clearly observed: that everything accomplished that had something of greatness in it, everything that was above the commonplace, was accomplished either by Anglo-Saxons directly, or was due to Anglo-Saxon initiative.

There is but one exception to this rule. Men have come to America who pledged their services to the United States and who served the United States well. I refer to such men as Steuben, Lafayette, DeKalb, Schurz, and others. These men, however, brought with them the characteristics and abilities of their respective races. The American descendants of the races to which these men belonged did not retain these capacities and abilities, (v. chapter, "The German-Americans.") In other words, they deteriorated. That this deterioration does not include the Jews, Chapter VI proves. The Irish escaped it to an extent; for in their case religious reasons prevented promiscuity for a long time. With the influx of Slavs and Latins, that is changing, not to the benefit of the Irish. The North of Ireland men are Irishmen geographically only; racially, they are Anglo-Saxons and share their fate. The deterioration of Germans and Scandinavians is marked. They had not the strong race consciousness of the Jews, nor the religious convictions of the Irish.

What is true of politics is also true of literature, art, and science. Everything above the commonplace is either directly accomplished by Anglo-Saxons or is due to Anglo-Saxon initiative.

In a booklet entitled "The Unitarian Church: Its History and Characteristics. A Statement by Joseph Crooker," I read under the heading "By their fruits ye shall know them." We are willing to let the facts speak for themselves. The record shows that Unitarians have been fruitful in good works far beyond what could reasonably have been expected of them. Our American churches have never embraced more than one two-hundredth part of the population of the United States. If, therefore, our people have contributed one two-hundredth to the various beneficent activities of our country, our faith will show an average fruitfulness. Any larger proportion than this means so much extra credit. Let us, then, from this point of view, consider a few facts.

"On the ceiling of the vestibule of the Boston Public Library are the names of some score and a half Americans who have been most eminent in art and literature, in law and science. Of these belonging to the nineteenth century nearly four-fifths are the names of Unitarians, — some hundred and fifty times our proportion. Chief Justice Coleridge, of England, in making an address . . . referred to the American authors most known and honoured abroad; every one whom he mentioned was a Unitarian.

"In any list of the thirty most eminent Americans in literature that may be made we shall find at the head Emerson, and after him Longfellow, Lowell, Holmes, Hawthorne, Bryant, Bancroft, Motley, Thoreau, Prescott, Parkman, Miss Alcott. . . . We can claim at least half the names in such a list, however made up, and these by far the most distinguished. Or, in other words, about a hundred times our proportion.

"Another list of names could be made of those distinctly or essentially Unitarians that would contain as many distinguished persons as could be found outside our fellowship, such as: Bayard Taylor, George William Curtis, Helen Hunt, Bret Harte, Henry C. Lea, Edwin P. Whipple, William R. Alger, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 0. B. Frothingham, Mrs. A. D. T. Whitney, John Fiske, Jared Sparks, George Ripley, Charles Eliot Norton, James T. Fields, Richard Hildreth, J. T. Trowbridge, and many others. ... In a series of biographies known as 'American Men of Letters,' eleven of the eighteen are the lives of Unitarians, not including the Unitarian Quaker, Whittier. . . .

"In the 'History of Education,' by Compayre, the two names mentioned in the chapter on the United States are William Ellery Channing and Horace Mann, both Unitarians. When we add to these the names of Elizabeth P. Peabody, the pioneer in Kindergarten work in America; William G. Eliot, our apostle of all the humanities at St. Louis and the founder of Washington University; Ezra Cornell, who made the institution bearing his name possible; Peter Cooper, who created Cooper Institute, a pioneer in its line; Jonas G. Clark, who created Clark University; Dr. Samuel G. Howe, the teacher of the blind; President Charles W. Eliot, who in reorganizing and developing Harvard University has done a monumental work for education in America, we have at least a quarter of the names of those most influential in the educational progress of our land during the past century, — a number out of all proportion to our size as a religious body.

"Some of the activities along the lines of philanthropy have already been indicated; but there are others to be added, and they may be represented by the following names: Joseph Tuckerman, the first in this country to organize charity work in Boston according to what we now know as approved scientific methods; Dorothea L. Dix, the world's greatest philanthropist among women; Henry Berg, who inaugurated the work for the suppression of cruelty to animals; John Pierpont, the fiery advocate of all reforms, but more especially temperance; Susan B. Anthony, Mary A. Livermore, Samuel J. May, — names that represent some of the noblest efforts ever made for the higher life of the race; Henry W. Bellows, who was the creative and presiding genius of the Sanitary Commission; Edward Everett Hale. When we add Doctor Channing, we have ten in any list of the twenty-five names of the most eminent Americans belonging to this class, nearly a hundredfold more than our proportion. . . .

"The man who started the agitation for civil service reform, Representative Jenckes, of Rhode Island, was a Unitarian. Dr. James Freeman Clarke and Dr. Henry W. Bellows were for a long time the only clergymen of prominence who gave this reform earnest and untiring support. George William Curtis and Dorman B. Eaton (both Unitarians) shared with Carl Schurz the leadership of this great movement. The two men who were its most valiant and powerful advocates in the Senate for years were Hoar and Burnside. Though the smallest of churches, we have played the largest part in this vital reformation of our national life. . . .

"It is an interesting and significant fact that nine of the twenty-eight persons included in the 'American Statesmen Series ' were Unitarians, — vastly more than what could reasonably be called our share. . . .

"Recently tablets were dedicated in the Hall of Fame to twenty-five Americans who had been selected for these highest honours by the votes of a large and competent jury. Of this number, the following twelve, or eighty times our proportion, were Unitarians: Emerson, Longfellow, Hawthorne, Horace Mann, Peter Cooper, Channing, John Marshall, Joseph Story, John Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, and Webster."

American art and literature are thoroughly Unitarian. Why is it that the small Unitarian Church has produced so many great men in America? This is the answer: The Unitarian Church has as its followers Anglo-Saxon Americans almost exclusively. The great qualities of that race give to that church the great number of men of genius, a number out of all proportion to its numerical strength. The church doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with it; it is the race of its members that is essential, and that makes it great.

There are Unitarian Magyars who share with Catholic and Lutheran Magyars the honour of having added not a single thought, not a single suggestion, to civilization. Francis David, the prominent first bishop of the Unitarian Church in Transylvania, was a Saxon, not a Magyar. Petofi was a Slav, Maurus Jokai was a Jew. Compare the small handful of Saxons in Transylvania with the Magyars, and this must be admitted: that the two hundred thousand Saxons there are, as far as the progress of man and civilization is concerned, vastly more important than the whole herd of eight million Unitarian, Catholic, Lutheran, or anything else Magyars. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

Why is it that people of the Anglo-Saxon race alone have accomplished so much? Why is it that races that elsewhere are as active as the Anglo-Saxon race have in America deteriorated to the level of the Magyars? (v. chapter, "The German-Americans.") For this reason: in the United States the Anglo-Saxon race alone continued its normal development. The Anglo-Saxon alone did not discard his mother tongue (v. chapter, "Heredity and Language") and a sense of superiority has prevented promiscuity to a considerable extent.

Promiscuousness is becoming general. Soon it will have destroyed the great qualities of the Anglo-Saxon race, as it has destroyed the great qualities of other Teutonic people in America, if they do not prefer to die out. As the Anglo-Saxon birth-rate in many communities is rapidly decreasing, in some falling below the death-rate, it seems that the Anglo-Saxons prefer extinction to degeneration. In fifty years, probably, the last of them will have drowned himself in the Pacific.

Will the country outlive the death of its Saxon heart? (v. "The Pan-European Rome.")
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 32961
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Race or Mongrel, by Alfred P. Schultz

Postby admin » Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:56 am

CHAPTER XXIII: Immigration: Who in America?

The first census was taken in 1790.

Table I gives the number of inhabitants according to the censuses taken every ten years, and the percentage of increase.

Table I

YEARS / POPULATION / PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE


1790 / 3,929,214 / --
1800 / 5,308,433 / 35.11
1810 / 7,229,881 / 36.40
1820 / 9,633,822 / 33.06
1830 / 12,806,020 / 33.55
1840 / 17,069,453 / 32.67
1850 / 23,191,876 / 35.86
1860 / 31,443,321 / 35.58
1870 / 38,558,371 / 22.63
1880 / 50,155,783 / 30.08
1890 / 63,236,388 / 26.08
1900 / 76,303,387 / 20.66


Notice that before the immigration commenced the percentage of increase was not smaller than after 1820.

Table II gives the annual immigration between 1820 and 1905.

Table II

1820 / 8,385 / 1825 / 10,199
1821 / 9,127 / 1826 / 10,837
1822 / 6,911 / 1827 / 18,875
1823 / 6,354 / 1828 / 27,382
1824 / 7,912 / 1829 / 22,520
1830 / 23,322 / 1863 / 176,282
-- / -- / 1864 / 193,418
-- / -- /1865 / 248,120
1831 / 22,663 / 1866 / 318,568
1832 / 60,482 / 1867 / 315,722
1833 / 58,640 / 1868 / 138,840
1834 / 65,365 / 1869 / 352,768
1835 / 45,374 / 1870 / 387,203
1836 / 76,242 / -- / --
1837 / 79,340 / -- / --
1838 / 38,914 / 1871 / 321,350
1839 / 68,069 / 1872 / 404,806
1840 / 84,066 / 1873 / 459,803
-- / -- / 1874 / 313,339
-- / -- / 1875 / 227,498
1841 / 80,280 / 1876 / 169,986
1842 / 104,565 / 1877 / 141,857
1843 / 52,496 / 1878 / 138,469
1844 / 78,615 / 1879 / 177,826
1845 / 114,371 / 1880 / 444,427
1846 / 154,416 / -- / --
1847 / 234,968 / -- / --  
1848 / 226,527 / 1881 / 669,431
1849 / 297,024 / 1882 / 788,992
1850 / 369,980 / 1883 / 603,322
-- / -- / 1884 / 518,592
-- / -- / 1885 / 395,346
1851 / 379,466 / 1886 / 334,203
1852 / 371,603 / 1887 / 490,109
1853 / 368,645 / 1888 / 546,889
1854 / 427,833 / 1889 / 444,427
1855 / 200,877 / 1890 / 455,302
1856 / 200,436 / -- / --
1857 / 251,306 / -- / --
1858 / 123,125 / 1891 / 560,319  
1859 / 121,282 / 1892 / 623,084  
1860 / 153,640 / 1893 / 439,730
-- / -- / 1894 / 285,621
-- / -- / 1895 / 258,536
1861 / 91,918 / 1896 / 343,267
1862 / 91,985 / 1897 / 230,832
1898 / 229,299 / 1903 / 857,046
1899 / 311,715 / 1904 / 812,870
1900 / 448,572 / 1905 / 1,026,499
Total: 3,730,975 / 3, 833,076
1901 / 487,918
1902 / 648,743
Grand Total: 22,978,583


In the years 1847, 1848, 1849, 1850, 1851, 1852, 1853, 1854, 1870, 1873, 1881, 1882, 1883, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, immigration exceeded one per cent, of the receiving population. Be it remembered that every year the receiving population was less homogeneous than the year before.

The race of the population, its homogeneousness, however, is of very much greater importance than its number.

In 1900 the population of the United States was 76,303,387, the total white population was 66,990,802.

TABLE III

Native whites of native parents / 41,053,417 / 53.81%  
Native whites of foreign parents / 15,687,322 / 20.55%  
Foreign born / 10,250,063 / 13.44%
Totals: 66,990,802 / 87.80%
Negroes / 8,840,789 / 11.59%  
Indians / 266,760 / 0.34%  
Chinese / 119,050 / 0.15%  
Japanese / 85,986 / 0.11%  
Coloured / 9,312,585 / 12.20%
Totals: 76,303,387 / 100.00%


Table IV gives the foreign born in the United States by birthplaces (1900).

Table IV

Germany / 2,819,396 / 26.91%
Ireland / 1,619,469 / 15.48%
Great Britain / 1,171,934 / 11.20%  
Sweden and Norway / 913,051 / 8.73%
Russia / 642,236 / 6.14%
Austro-Hungary / 638,019 / 6.10%
Italy / 484,703 / 4.67%  
Denmark / 154,616 / 1.47%
Switzerland / 115,959 / 1.10%
Netherlands / 105,098 / 1.05%
France / 104,534 / 1.00%
Other parts of Europe / 133,673 / 1.27%
Canada / 1,183,225 / 11.31%  
Latin America / 137,797 / 1.30%
China / 106,659 / 1.02%
All others / 129,716 / 1.24%  
Totals: 10,460,085 / 100.00%


Observe that the natives of Russia have increased from practically 0.00% to 6.14% of the foreign born, the natives of Austro-Hungary to 6.10%, and the natives of Italy to 4.67%.

Another way of looking at the subject is by comparing the number of immigrants of the different nationalities for the different periods.

Observe the decline of immigration from Germany from 29.7% to 27.6% to 14.1% to 4.5%.

Observe the decline of immigration from Great Britain from 17% (1881-1890) to 3.3% (1901-1903).

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF IMMIGRANTS
1821 TO 1903


Image


Observe the decline of immigration from Ireland from 30.2% (1821-1880) to 10.8% (1881-1890) to 4.7% (1901-1903).

Observe the increase of immigration from Austro-Hungary from 0.7% to 6.7% to 15.5% to 24.6%.

Observe the increase of immigration from Italy from 0.7% to 17.0% to 27.3%.

Observe the increase of immigration from Russia from 0.9% to 5.7% to 15.4% to 16.4%.

In addressing the Senate March 16, 1896, Senator Lodge said: " Down to 1875 there had been scarcely any immigration to this country except from kindred or allied races, and no other which was sufficiently numerous to have produced any effect on the national characteristics, or to be taken into account here."

In 1903 more than 70.0% of the immigration came from Austro-Hungary, Russia, and Italy. Who can doubt that, had the proportions which obtained in the last twenty years obtained in the earlier period of the country's history, the country would not have developed as it did?

The influx of these races cannot be without consequences. The surgeons at the ports of immigration observe that the present immigrants have a much higher per cent, of loathsome diseases, and that, in general physique, it is very much inferior to the immigration of thirty years ago. The history of the races now coming proves beyond doubt their mental inferiority to the races that immigrated before the advent of Slavs and Latins. If immigration is still a blessing, then the sturdy Northern races are in every way preferable to the Southern and Southeastern debris of races that have been. The free admission of these latter prevents the coming of the former, for if content to compete with Slavs and Latins, the Northerners need not migrate as far as the United States. Much more important than the economic effects of immigration are the racial effects of immigration.

It was Darwin's opinion that where selection (inbreeding) is not practised, distinct races are not formed, and that it is by incessant selection and close attention alone that noble races are maintained. To improve a race, close inbreeding is indispensable. Too close inbreeding leads to weakness and sterility. In case of man, the latter danger is nonexistent. God Cupido prevents it. It cannot be considered even as a possible danger in the case of a nation that consists of more than ten million souls.

There are historians who assert that primeval man lived in promiscuousness, but they cannot give a single reason for the assertion, nor quote one tribe as an example to support their theory. The fact is that even the lowest of savages, the natives of Australia, have very complex marriage regulations; and that all races which have stepped from darkness into the light of history had constitutions founded on the strictest race purity. Pride of race characterizes them all. Nearly every one of these peoples considered itself the pure descendant of one hero and of one heroine; and the Teutons traced their line of descent back, not to any gods, but to the German gods.

Many of the early religions considered marriage outside the tribe a most heinous offence. All nations that left their mark in history were of pure race. It is evident that inbreeding alone produces a national character. Biologists tell us that it takes at least ten generations with very careful selection before characteristics become fixed. A very much longer time than ten generations is necessary to fix a national character. Keen observers have recognized that nations and individuals of pure breed alone have character, but that the mongrel has none, long before biology proved the fact. No nation can exist and remain powerful that is not essentially homogeneous.

Immigration, not followed by selection, lessens and eventually destroys homogeneousness. It is beyond a doubt that the immigration of the last half-century was larger than could be absorbed. The immigrants were denationalized. Denationalization of a good race without thorough absorption by another strong race always spells degeneration. Their descendants spoke English and called themselves Americans. What, however, is in a name? The anthropological contents alone is of importance, not the name. The herd that infested the empire called itself Roman long after the death of the last Roman.

When noble races, hypnotized by theoretical considerations and phrases that smack of humanity, begin to entertain contempt for their healthy instinct, then only do they begin to practise promiscuousness. Noble races abhor crossing. Statistics prove this to be the case, also, in the United States. Where in any one locality many people of a particular race live, the men choose wives of their own race. And the race that was least clannish, that for a time was the most eager to practise French phrases, that most had "the native hue of resolution sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought," the German, was the quickest to degenerate. The same cause is beginning to have the same effect on the Anglo-Saxons.

Up to the middle of the last century a distinct national character was developing in the United States, and certain distinctive traits were forming. The addition of millions of other races has caused a decomposition which prevented the endurance of these characteristics, and caused this development to cease.  

Why do nations decline? Does conquest destroy a race? The history of the Jews, of the English, of the Irish, of the Germans, and of other peoples, proves that it does not.

Luxury cannot be held responsible. This is confined to the upper class, and the luxury of this class in Rome and Greece was not greater than that of the same class in America, England, Germany, and other countries to-day.

Immorality and vice cause national decay only in the case of peoples of corrupted blood. Nations of race suffer from periods of immorality, but soon become disgusted with depravity, and the disease is cured without leaving permanent effects, (v. The history of England in the seventeenth century, the history of Prussia in the eighteenth century.)

One cause only is sufficiently powerful to cause the decay of a nation. This cause is promiscuousness. A nation is decayed that consists of degenerates, and it consists of degenerates when it no longer constitutes a distinct race. A degenerated race is one that has no longer the same internal worth which it had of old, for the reason that incessant infusions of foreign blood have diluted and weakened the old blood. In other words, a nation is deteriorated that consists of individuals not at all related or very distantly related to the founders of the nation.

The impetus which the founders of the nation have given it will persist for a time. Their ideas, their ideals, their civilization will for a time seem to be alive, like a galvanized corpse. Soon after the death of the race, however, its institutions, its morals, its customs, will perish. The same words begin to signify different things, for ideas have the same meaning to people of the same blood only. As the Romans perished, Roman institutions and Roman government changed. It carried the name long after it ceased to be a republic. A nation consisting of a heterogeneous mass of men has no future. Its first defeat marks the moment of its death.

Germanic elements are still dominant in the United States. It is a sacred duty to preserve them, for the Germanic heritage is the greatest the world has. The cosmopolitan humanitarianism based on hysterical French phrases alone prevents the United States from asserting and preserving its Teutonic character. The phrases of equality and the brotherhood of man led the French to guillotine many of their best men. Very soon after the enunciation of the absurd principles, Napoleon put an end to all that nonsense as far as France was concerned. Elsewhere the phrases have worked inestimable harm.

The principle that all men are created equal is still considered the chief pillar of strength of the United States. It is a little declamatory phrase, and only one objection can be raised against it, that it does not contain one iota of truth. Every man knows that the phrase is a falsehood. The truth is that all men are created unequal. Even the men of one and the same race are unequal; the inequalities, however, are not greater than the inequalities existing between the individual leaves of one tree, for they are variations of one and the same type. The differences between individuals of distinct races are essential, and, as they are the differences that exist between one species and another, they are lasting. The attempts at creating perfect man, man pure and simple, or "The American," by a fusion of all human beings, is similar to the attempt of creating the perfect dog by a fusion of all canine races. Every animal breeder knows that it cannot be done.

The thing "dog" does not exist in nature; the term is an abstraction. The term "man" or "human being" is likewise an abstraction. It is a term almost void of meaning. The being "man," which we attempt to create here by promiscuousness, which never existed and never will exist except as a figure of speech, cannot even be pictured by the mind. The imagination refuses to create such a being. Let the mind imagine "man," and the mind's eye sees either a white man, a black man, a yellow man, or a red man. The "man" that the mind imagines is not only a white man, but he bears in addition the characteristics of his particular race. The mind's eye sees a Jewish head on Jewish shoulders, or an English head on English shoulders, or a German head on German shoulders. Or it sees a worthless thing, a mongrel, with its characteristics, of which the chief is lack of character. The mental differences are very much greater than the physical differences, great as these are, for they extend from white to black. The mental differences can be studied by tendencies, capacities, and results accomplished only; and, that the tendencies of the mongrel are vicious, the post-Romans, the post-Hindoos, and the other mongrels clearly prove.

The United States is not much less cosmopolitan to-day than imperial Rome was.

The friends of universal uniformity and of eternal peace will say: "Well, as soon as we are equally worthless, we will not know it, and happiness and peace will prevail." The conclusion is false. The mongrels are equally worthless, but there is no harmony in the depraved lot. The instincts of the different races do not entirely disappear, but they cannot develop. The result is internal unhappiness as far as the individual is concerned, and discord, chronic civil war, as far as the state is concerned. Anarchy within the individual, anarchy in the state.

And why should promiscuousness in the United States have a different effect than it had in Rome and elsewhere? The opinion is advanced that the public schools change the children of all races into Americans. Put a Scandinavian, a German, and a Magyar boy in at one end, and they will come out Americans at the other end. Which is like saying, let a pointer, a setter, and a pug enter one end of a tunnel and they will come out three greyhounds at the other end.

Public schools are in our time not educational institutions, but information bureaus, and the cultivation of the memory predominates. The children of every race can be trained to the cultivation of the memory, but they cannot all be educated alike. The instincts of the different races are too much out of harmony. It is for this reason that the schools give information, with very little education. Schools cannot accomplish the impossible. To express the same opinion biologically, " All animals cannot be fed with the same fodder."

One race cannot borrow at will the essential characteristics of another race, and the school cannot instil the peculiarities of one race into children of another race. The school cannot change the internal essence, although it may produce outward conformity. Possibly its influence on the children of immigrants is a bad one, because it deprives them of their mother tongue. Statistics show that not the immigrants, not the immigrant children, but that the native-born children of the immigrants are the most criminal class. It is three times as criminal as the class composed of the children of natives.

We know that nature is more powerful than theory, and that the individual is the product of many generations, and yet we believe that the reading of the Declaration of Independence will change the essence of the child. Man is, to a very small extent only, himself; his ideals, his instincts, his forms of thinking are not his own, but his ancestors'. Never mind; flag exercises have a retroactive effect and will change all that! The darkest middle ages did not practise nor believe in a witchcraft as absurd and as silly as the public school witchcraft that we believe in and practise.

There are some who hold that the common use of the same language will produce a homogeneous race. Have the Irish, because they accepted the English language, become English? Let us look at extremes, and the absurdity of the statement becomes evident at once. Many negroes speak English. Have they for that reason become Englishmen? Have their tendencies, ideals, and capacities become akin to those of the Anglo-Saxon race? (v. chapter, "Heredity and Language.") Were the post-Romans Romans because they spoke Latin and believed themselves to be Romans?

Others maintain that the same environment produces men essentially equal. Why has environment failed to accomplish such a result in the case of the Indians? Why have the Indians not produced a George Washington or a Jefferson or an Emerson? What strange fatality has prevented them from inventing the steamboat or the telegraph? The environment idolators answer perhaps: "We admit that, in the case of the coloured races, the statement that all men are created equal is a phrase, a falsehood, but all white men (so called) are created equal, or the same environment makes them equal.' ' Why is it that in the United States the Anglo-Saxons accomplished so much and the other races so little? The history of politics, of art, of science, and of literature proves that the Americans of German descent are very much inferior to the Americans of Anglo-Saxon descent. Why? Does not the same environment surround both? And is the German not a great race? Why this inferiority?

The opinion has been advanced that the German-Americans have not accomplished more because the immigrants were only farmers and artisans. The sentence contains a fallacy and a falsehood. The statement itself is the falsehood, for they were not all farmers. and artisans. The fallacy is the implied slur on the farmer. "Farmers are not worth anything, what can you expect?" In fact, the agricultural population is the best part of the population of every country. It is the source of its strength. Why, then, this inferiority? This is the answer: The Anglo-Saxons continued in America their normal development, while the Germans neither became absorbed nor continued the development peculiar to the race. Environment had nothing to do with it.

Why is the Egypt of to-day not the Egypt of the wise priests of Memphis? Why is it that Chaldea, in times gone by a most populous and flourishing community, is to-day a desolation inhabited by nomads? Why is it that Asia Minor produced a culture that was second to none when a great race lived there? Greek culture had its origin partly, at least, in Asia Minor. Was it the environment or the race that produced Homer, Thales, the father of Greek philosophy, Pythagoras, Herodotus, Alcaeus, and Sappho? Was it the environment or the genius of the Greek race that produced in Asia Minor the Ionic order of architecture? If the environment had anything at all to do with it, why was it powerless to produce another culture equal to that of the Greeks when people of different race took possession of Asia Minor? Why, indeed, is it so utterly powerless to-day?

Why is Greece not the Hellas of old? Has the environment changed? Does not the same sun shine, and does not the same sea wash the shores of Greece? If environment is all-powerful, why has it in two thousand years not produced another Hellas?

Why has the environment of Southern Europe not produced another Rome, if the first was due to it? Is it because the Mediterranean Sea has lost a few grains of salt?

A number of races live in Austro-Hungary. They are surrounded by the same environment, and live under the same political institutions. Why has only one of these races produced literature, art, science, culture? Look at the long list of poets that the Germans of Austro-Hungary have produced, from the Singer of the Nibelungenlied and Walter von der Vogelweide to Grillparzer, after Gothe and Schiller the greatest of German poets, to Lenau, to Anzengruber, and Rosegger of our own time. Look at the long list of German artists and scientists. Where are the poets, the artists, the scientists that the Slovenians, Croatians, Slovaks, Magyars, Gipsies and the other more or less interesting peoples of Austro-Hungary have produced? Why, indeed, has the environment been powerless in their case?

Political institutions, likewise, produce nothing, because they are the products of a race and change with the race. There is no constitution which is the best constitution. The constitution which a race deserves is the best for that race. In the white world, people of race always preferred limited governments. Absolute government, despotism, exercised by a monarch or by a boss, is the government that mongrels deserve, and all nondescript herds are eventually so ruled, (v. Rome, South America, Mexico, the rule of the bosses in Southern Italy and elsewhere.)

This is the truth: schools, political institutions, and environment are utterly incapable to produce anything. No man can ever become anything else than he is already potentially and essentially. Education and schools are favourable or detrimental to development. They cannot create. To express it differently, no man can ever learn anything or know anything that he does not know already potentially and essentially. In that sense Plato's statement, that all knowledge is reminiscence, is true. Biologically expressed, this sentence reads as follows: A young pug develops into nothing but an old pug, a young greyhound into nothing but an old greyhound; and never, in all the ages between the creation of the world and doomsday, does a pug develop into a greyhound, no matter what the education, the training, the political institutions, and the environment.

I have said that the ideas, ideals, and institutions of a nation change with its racial composition. The change of ideas and ideals becomes manifest only in changed tendencies and changed institutions. Is such a change traceable in the political institutions of the United States?

Many of our industrial centres are under the absolute rule of a boss. That his power is exercised under cover does not make it less absolute. The heterogeneousness of the population makes Tammany Hall rule possible in New York. Heterogeneity makes boss rule possible in every city. In the municipal governments the greatest possible evils have developed. The deterioration of the city governments cannot be questioned. London, Berlin, Hamburg, and other cities prove that the size of the city is not responsible for this deterioration. The city republics, Hamburg, Bremen, and the cities of Switzerland, prove that the democratic form of government is not responsible for it. Why, then, this deterioration of the governments of our cities? The race confusion js responsible for it. In our towns, in many of which there is little or no race confusion, the governments have remained good to the present day.

In most cities the republican form at least is still respected, while in others even that is not the case. Look at New York. A mayor was to be chosen. Mr. McClellan was declared elected. The day after election many voters doubted McClellan's election. His efforts at preventing an honest recount convinced the majority of the voters that he was not elected. Why, if he was certain of his election, did he object to a recount? And why, as a man of honour, if he was not certain of his election, did he oppose a recount? The fact is that Mr. McClellan had nothing to do with it. The boss ordered his man to the mayoralty, and his man was seated. The little diversion of election day had nothing to do with it. Public officials in New York are no longer dependent upon the electorate.

After the election many dollars were spent for the watching of the ballots. It was considered a certainty that without special watchers the packages of ballots would be opened, the ballots marked so as to conform to the boss dictator's command, and resealed. Corrupt practices in election have increased as the race confusion increased. There was a time when the direct bribery of the voters was the only corruption practised, but later the votes were bought en bloc. Now by foul means the illiterate voters are made to mark their ballots not for their candidate, but for the candidate of somebody else. Does it not occasionally happen that bosses pack the conventions of the rival party in order to secure the nomination of a "yellow dog" ticket? Are not frequently large sums of money spent to hire obliging election officials to miscount votes, or to render votes void by additional marking of the ballots? How about the courts? Are the hirelings not promised immunity? Are they not told that the boss controls the courts and that judges are obliging?

As such corruptions are practised and as they become general, popular government is becoming a phrase, and its end is in sight. The original democracy no longer exists. Everywhere in the United States the power of executive officers is increasing, while that of the legislative bodies is decreasing. Absolute government is the only one possible wherever race confusion prevails. Limited government is possible only where the race instincts of the people are the same. The United States is not immune. There is no destiny that ensures her perpetuity.  

As far as the States are concerned, we know that many of them are owned by private interests. Mr. Lincoln Steffens has proved this for Missouri, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The railways owned Wisconsin; the baking-powder ring Missouri; a lot of cheap organizations New Jersey, and so forth. To call Mr. Steffens a muck-raker and a scandal-monger, because he exposes bribery, corruption, perjury, knavery, and rascality of every kind and of huge proportions, is not disproving his assertions. Denial and dispute as to the fact are impossible, for Mr. Steffens cites lawsuits and convictions proving the facts.

Legislators steal and are the slaves of corporations. According to Mr. Steffens, "free speech and free press have become humbugs," "the corporations rule and their subjects graft." "That is the way popular government works in the United States."

Are there not men in the United States who consider themselves entitled to think if not to say: "The little diversion of voting once a year does the people good. They vote as they please, or they think they vote as they please. We induct into office whomsoever we please, and do as we please all the year around." The constitution guarantees to each State a republican form of government, but it has nothing to say as to the substance. Are there not States in the Union with a government essentially akin to that of the South American republics, a government in form republican, in fact the absolute rule of a boss or an oligarchy?

Look at Pennsylvania, look at Colorado. During the time of the miners' strike in Colorado, the mine-owners gave the peremptory order that certain of the strikers be expelled; and they were taken out of the State by violence, without even the shadow of a trial. Not even the republican form was respected. Russia does not send her culprits to Siberia in a more autocratic manner. However, we are in the United States, where, in times gone by, popular government prevailed. When the next election came around, Colorado refused to reelect Peabody, and Adams was elected governor. Who, except the damned voter, cared? The real rulers of Colorado did not want Mr. Adams, and he was not seated. The legislature calmly stole the governorship.

How about the national government? Can similar changes, tending to the despotizing of American institions, be detected there? They can. Is it not true that centralization is progressing rapidly, and that State rights are becoming less important every day? Personal executive encroachments are deplorable; not, however, by far as important as the change that Congress has undergone. In the House, debate is smothered. It is, in fact, no longer a deliberative body. The real power has passed from the House to the Senate; and in the Senate a practice has developed by which each Senator has practically a veto on any piece of legislation.

In times gone by the President appointed the administrative officers, and the Senate had a veto power; to-day the Senators (men not elected by the people) appoint these officers. The President vetoes their appointments at his peril, for the Senate can keep out of office every man whom the President appoints, even the members of the Cabinet. The Senator, by controlling the federal offices, has the administration of his State under his hands, and at times that power is exercised.

All this despotizing of American institutions is bad; much worse, however, is the development of an irresponsible government by the handful of men that owns the United States. No one has ever accused these men of being wise, just, or honest; no one has ever accused them of having any interest in the country's welfare. If they had they would not use their corrupting influence and power to the extent that they do. Look at the con- tempt for law that the hydrocephalic monster combines entertain. Is it not almost surprising that the masses still entertain respect for law when the "irresponsibles" that rule the country are demonstrating to them that they live under a system essentially unjust?

Which is better, government by an absolute ruler whose interests, frequently at least, are the interests of the country, or the absolute rule of these irresponsibles, whose interests in their country consist in the sum they can squeeze out of it? They are vampires, who have learned the trick of sucking gold in addition to the trick of sucking blood.

Political institutions change with the blood that has created them. A strong race carries its institutions with it; and, if it displaces another race, its institutions displace those of the displaced race, even though the old forms are retained.

Wherever promiscuousness destroys a race, its institutions share the decomposition of the race. Declarations, constitutions, statute books, and other papers with ink on them, are not decisive. With another race, words, ideas, and ideals have another meaning or cease to have any meaning.

That the institutions of the United States have essentially changed admits of no doubt. "We have hitherto had some fundamental principles," said Senator Hoar; "ideals to which we looked up. Have you anything to give us to take their place?"

Rome carried the name long after it ceased to be a republic. Can other tendencies be traced in the United States that indicate changed ideals? Let us see. Has not the police organization of more than one city deteriorated into a criminal or semicriminal organization? Has crime not increased, absolutely as well as relatively? Has in particular the class of juvenile culprits not increased enormously? Do statistics not prove that the native-born children of the immigrants are the most criminal class? Highway robbery is in the cities of the United States an every-day occurrence, while in Northern Europe it is a very rare crime.

Are there not corporations who ask and who receive corporation favours? If by any trick of politics, corporations get money that belongs to the public, these corporations and the hireling officials that are their accomplices are thieves. Are they in jail? No, they are in the seats of honour ! Have you ever heard of a railway president or director going to jail because the greed of their corporation murders many thousand individuals every year? Have you ever thought that the criminals who sold jungle beef to the country for years ought to be in jail? Do you know that in the United States most commercial crimes go unpunished? Have you ever heard of a criminal prosecution in cases where rascality of incredible proportion was perpetrated under cover of high finance?

Do you know that the following crimes are perpetrated continually and that criminal prosecution is very rare: fraud in the organization, management, inflation, and destruction of corporations (to fleece the public); fraud in the railway business, to wit, stock juggling, rate juggling, grafting, and rebates; frauds on shippers, discriminations, wrong classification, and underbilling (to fleece the public); fraud in adulteration and misrepresentation of goods (to fleece the public); fraud in concealing and conveying property to avoid the just demands of creditors (to fleece the public), and many other crimes?

The Armstrong Committee has shown that ten thousand millions of insurance belonging to five million policy-holders were under the absolute control of a dozen men, a fact which in itself is a huge scandal. Each day the committee brought fresh evidences of corruption and knavery. The insurance scandal did not prove an American Panama or Dreyfus scandal because we had no Zola, and because the public, not having as acute a sense of honour as the French, did not force the district attorney to prosecute.

Make money and keep out of jail. The law exists for the stupid only. How to keep out of jail? Hire a shrewd lawyer to help you commit crimes under cover of a thousand laws. Lawyers receive fees, never bribes. Look at San Francisco.

Look at the extortion and bribery going on. Look at the many prosperous brigands in the seats of honour, and admit that the United States has more criminals than any other country that the sun shines on. Admit, at the same time, that the proportion of criminals who escape jail is greater here than anywhere else.

That these crimes are perpetrated is bad; that the big criminals are not prosecuted is worse. Worst of all, however, is the fact that public sentiment has deteriorated to a level where it scarcely considers the political and commercial brigands as criminals. Race confusion changes ideals.

In what other respects have ideals changed? There was a time when Americans were attached to family life. The right to the pursuit of happiness implied the assertion that the American home was to be a happy home. To-day the home, the bed-rock of the nation, is upon the decline, and the incredible host of boarding-houses which infest the land proves this. The tendency is to view marriage in a more and more contemptuous way.

In the United States, with the geographical centre a thousand miles west of the centre of population, there ought to be no reason for a concentration of advantages by artificially restricting the birth-rate. Yet this is the case. The women want to amuse themselves, and they consider children a burden; they are tending toward superficiality and shallowness. The fact that in the Southern States the birth-rate remained high proves that immigration is, to an extent at least, responsible for the falling of the birth-rate elsewhere in the United States. The South has received very little immigration.

President Eliot's report for 1902 shows that out of 881 graduates of the classes 1872-1877, 634 were married and had 1,262 children. In other words, 1,268 men and women had 1,262 children. They did not even reproduce themselves. Mr. Eliot's observations are confirmed by the observations of Professor Thorndike. He finds that in the case of Middlebury College, a hundred years ago, the average number of children to each graduate was 5.6. In 1875-1879 it was only 1.8. In the case of Wesleyan University the average dropped from 4.5 to 2.6; in case of the New York University from 4 to 2.5.

The same tendencies to artificial restriction of births are operating among the descendants of the earlier Teutonic and Celtic immigrants. They cannot hold their own against the Slavs and Latins. By destroying her old citizens, the United States pays a heavier fine for the new citizens than they are worth. The hordes of Southern Europeans are driving the American toward the setting sun. Many settlers, in every way more desirable than the newcomers, are leaving the United States. Emigrants from the United States are settling Manitoba, Alberta, Assiniboia, and Saskatchewan. It is a leak at the top. In New England the Anglo-Saxon is dying out. Many are leaving and many are deteriorating. The rural districts are in many cases hopelessly decayed.

The birth-rate of the inferior European races is high. Under the conditions normal to them the high birth-rate is associated with a high death-rate. The infant mortality is very high, so that their actual increase is smaller than that of the better races. The Magyars, for instance, in spite of a high birth-rate, are afraid of dying out; and, for that reason, they are attempting to Magyarize by force the better races that live in Hungary. When people of these races migrate to a country where a better race legislates for them, and forces them to be moderately clean, the high birth-rate continues and the death-rate falls. Necessarily they displace the better race. The fight resolves itself for the better race into a fight against the multiplication table. The better race has the right, the sacred duty, to protect itself. When the immigrants came from Northern Europe, their quality was better and their number smaller. Other conditions prevail to-day, and we must break with the laissez faire doctrine. We must break away from humanitarian phrases for which there is no justification in nature, or we must degenerate. The result of promiscuousness is degeneration.

Restriction is protection. History proves the value of a national character, and that without restriction a national type cannot develop. The observations contained in the English Blue Book prepared by Ronald C. Lindsay, secretary of the British Embassy at Washington, are quite true. He says: "There is no such thing as an American type. Many generations must elapse before Americans can be physiologically differentiated from Europeans to the extent, for instance, that the French are from the Germans."

William Archer, speaking of Americans, says: "The great advantage which these superbly vital people possess over all other nations is their material and moral plasticity. There is nothing rigid, nothing oppressive, nothing inaccessible to the influence of changing conditions about them." Let us trust that Mr. Archer's remarks do not characterize the Americans, for they characterize the mongrel. The mongrel's plasticity is great; there is nothing rigid, nothing oppressive, nothing inaccessible in the mongrel, because it has no character. There is something rigid, something oppressive, something inaccessible in race, for there is something sacred, something inexplicable in race.

Race has character. The mongrel is very plastic; it is at home everywhere, because it has no depth. "Aryavarta is the home of the Hindoo," says the Hindoo Scripture; "the Sudra may dwell anywhere." People of race alone have worth, and restriction of immigration alone makes possible the development of a race in America. There are those who oppose restriction on humanitarian principles, and spread out their sympathy over so wide an area that it becomes very superficial. They declare that their sympathy embraces Aryans, Magyars, and Chinamen; pigeons, frogs, and snakes; their neighbour, their neighbour's servant, and their neighbour's devil. When, however, their sympathy is taxed anywhere, none is found. It is so shallow that it volatilizes. The humanitarian phrases, more frequently than not, are a cloak for the most brutal egotism.

Sympathy and respect for his own race is the most sacred duty of the individual. The individual who honours and respects his own race does the best he can do for the world. Never mind about your sympathy for other races; they do not need it. China, for instance, has done very well without your phrases. She has produced a strong race, a civilization of her own, and has managed to exist for five thousand years. It is not at all probable that America will do as well; for every day we are becoming more like Magyars and Southeastern Europeans. The very first condition ensuring permanency America has not fulfilled. She has not yet produced a race. Never mind, therefore, your phrases, and restrict immigration.

"All the necessary crossing has been done," says Mr. Luther Burbank. "Now comes the work of refining and eliminating, until we shall get an ultimate product which will be the finest human race that has ever been known." If it is not the finest human race, be content if it is a race at all. The mongrel alone is entirely worthless. We must eliminate, select, and restrict immigration if a race is to come into being here.

"Self-love, my liege, is not so vile a sin as self-neglect" (Gothe).

"It is difficult to convince mankind that the love of virtue is the love of ourselves" (Cicero).

"Become (develop into) the man that you are" (Pindaros).
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 32961
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Race or Mongrel, by Alfred P. Schultz

Postby admin » Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:12 am

CHAPTER XXIV: IMMIGRATION: MEN OR THE BALANCE-SHEET?

In the beginning of the nineteenth century the republican sentiment was so strong in Europe that Napoleon was justified in saying: "In fifty years Europe will be republican or it will be Cossack." To-day the monarchical sentiment is stronger in Europe than it ever was. Monarchism was never more secure on its foundations than it is to-day. France is a republic; not because republican sentiments are strong in France, but because the Bonaparte monarchists hate the Orleans monarchists more than they hate the republic. The same sentiment animates the Orleans monarchists. The republic is a temporary compromise between factions contending for the crown. When, a short time ago, the Norwegians, the most democratic people of Europe, perhaps of the world, chose a government, they decided by an overwhelming popular vote to have nothing to do with a republican form of government.

A hundred years' trial of democracy in America convinced them of the truth of Aristotle's observation, that democracy was not government for the people. They probably read De Tocqueville and Steffens. The way popular government works in the United States has probably brought them to Bismarck's conviction, that democracy and liberty are not synonymous terms, or to Fagute's conclusion, that democracy never is liberty. Perhaps it justified them in agreeing with Talleyrand, that democracy is an autocracy of blackguards. The Norwegians assumed that the best possible form of democracy was the American form; and that was the one which they were least willing to have in Norway, no matter how much wealth was connected with it. They attributed to the republican form of government, and to the mere form at that, the consequences of race confusion.

Every man has a stomach and two hands; not every man has a brain, and very few have a brain that is as good as their stomach. This is a truism very important in studying the economic effects of immigration. The present immigration differs from that of forty years ago in that it increases the number of hands in the United States, not the number of brains. The men of hands and brain not only do work, but they also make work, but the men of hands without brain do work only. They therefore oversupply the labour market and reduce the standard of wages and the standard of living. They crowd better men out of their places, and increase the army of the unemployed. It is a folly to maintain that these elements are desirable immigrants.

One of the pamphlets of the New Immigrants Protective League states that the immigrants gradually adapt themselves to American standards, and the second generation has familiarized itself with American conditions. Suppose for the moment that the second generation is as good economically as the generation which it has displaced (that it is not as good racially, I have proved in the preceding chapters), is there not another first generation of the same immigrants in the country to reduce the standard of living? Is the vicious circle not complete according to the Immigrants Protective League?

Conditions, however, are very much worse. The second generation is not Americanized (economically) to the extent that the Protective League assumes. Statistics show, for instance, that the tendency to illiteracy extends to the second generation. We know that the French Canadians in New England fail to educate their children, and that father, mother, sons, and daughters work. Their second generation does not in any respect take the place of the generation which it has crowded out. The second generation of Italians and Magyars, like French Canadians and others, live as the first generation has lived, and it continues to lower the standard and average of intelligence, ability, and morality.

The statement is made that the native American does not do manual labour. Is it because he does not want to work? No, it is because he cannot work for the wages that Slavs and Latins work for. Although he has already learned, in the big cities, to live with his family in a hole in the wall and call it his home, he has not yet learned to live upon rotten fruits and decayed vegetables, with mouldy bread and putrid meat as an occasional delicacy. He has not yet learned that the filth and vice of many tenement-house districts are the American economic ideal, because the cheap labour there assures an enormous trade balance in America's favour. In short, he has not yet recognized that he is a cur.

It was Mr. Friedrich Kapp who said that the sum which it would cost to bring him up in America represents the money value of the immigrant. Mr. Kapp, happy man, evidently never met men that were not worth the cost of their bringing up. A man who is worth nothing is worth nothing, no matter what the cost of his bringing up. On the other hand, is a man who is worth anything at all not worth much more than money?

No one will maintain that the United States, with a population of more than eighty million, cannot supply her own labour force. As the present immigration consists of people who do work, but who do not make work, its effect is a displacement of the native worker by the immigrant. There are but few States in the Union that want immigrants, and these do not want the immigrants that are now coming. Most of these States have emphatically declared that they do not want settlers from the immigrant quarters of the Eastern cities. The South wants as immigrants men of responsibility, farmers and agriculturalists, men of brain and hands. In other words, the South wants immigrants that she cannot have; men who have sense enough to stay at home; men who know that they can elsewhere succeed better than in the United States, where competition with the cheapest of European labourers cannot but have a detrimental effect.

These are the economic effects of the present immigration. The direct competition of the immigrant with the native labourer lowers wages, which in turn lowers the standard of living and degrades civilization. The low standard of living of many of the immigrants makes competition with them for the native impossible, and he is crowded out. Immigration, therefore, increases the army of the unemployed and again lowers the standard of living, degrades civilization, and causes discontent and crime.

When wages are low, the workmen strike, in the effort to better their conditions. The immigrant is always there to take the striker's place. Immigration, therefore, causes strikes to assume the proportions of civil war, and usually the defeat of the strikers. Immigration prevents wages from rising (wages have in the United States actually fallen when compared with the cost of living). In Northern Europe wages are now higher than formerly, not only absolutely but also relatively. Immigration forces the native to accept the low wages, for he is frequently placed before the alternative "work or starve." Free trade in labour forces him down to the low standard of the immigrant; the country, in other words, by suffering the competition, makes the workmen helots.

The low wages make it impossible for the man to provide for his family, and make it necessary for his wife and children to work. We have, in fact, more than five million women in gainful occupations, not counting the millions who keep one or two boarders in the stingy holes in which the low wages force them to live. Child labour is the great crime of the country. Immigration forces women and children to work. The low wages make it impossible for many men to marry and bring up children. Immigration, therefore, causes the native stock either to deteriorate or to die out.

The woman at work is forced to meet the same pernicious competition. It lowers her wages; and sewing-women, crocheting-women, belt-making-women, and others have to work for the merest pittance. She and her family are usually underfed. Suppose she becomes unable to work for a few days? With starving children, what will she do? The only thing she can do, — solicit employment on the street. The country, therefore, by not restricting immigration makes many women harlots.

Immigration not only lowers wages, but it also raises rents. Dr. E. R. Gould (ex-city chamberlain, New York) says: "The raising of the rents is partially attributable to the influx of a certain class of immigrants who are willing to occupy more crowded spaces than the preceding tenant, and are willing to pay a higher rent. . . . The trouble is that . . . life on the East Side seems to have become almost an obsession with many tenement-house dwellers. They leave it in many cases only to wish to return." In other words, they feel happy only when surrounded by the filth, vice, and depravity of certain sections.

Immigration, by keeping wages near the starvation point, prevents the development of a middle class, which alone has the power to bridle the trusts. The consequence is that an ever-increasing proportion of the nation's wealth concentrates in the hands of a few men. They are slave-holders, and the rest of the people ire their slaves.

"Fifty years ago," says Mr. Henry L. Call, in a paper read before the Economic Section of the Academy for the Advancement of Science, " there were not to exceed fifty millionaires in the United States, and their combined fortunes, including the half-millionaires as well, did not exceed a probable one hundred million dollars or one per cent, of the then aggregate wealth of the nation. Sixteen years ago the combined fortunes of this class were estimated at thirty-six billion, five hundred million dollars, or fifty-six per cent, of our national wealth. To-day a bare one per cent, of our population owns practically ninety-nine per cent, of the entire wealth of the nation. As a result of this wealth concentration, industrial society is practically divided into two classes, the enormously rich and the miserably poor. Our eighteen million wage-earners receive an average of but four hundred dollars per year; nine-tenths of our business men are notoriously failures; our clergy receive an average annual salary of about five hundred dollars, while the average for the educators of the land is even lower; and the income of other professional men in proportion. Of our six million farmers, one-third are tenants, and the homes of one-third of the remaining two-thirds are mortgaged. A debt burden is almost universal."

Mr. Steffens thinks that free press and free speech have become humbugs; but much more important is the fact that free contract labour has become a humbug. The workman is told to work, slave, or starve. He has no choice; and yet we continue to speak of free contract labour. He knows, as well as you do, that by accepting he becomes a helot. What, however, is he to do? Is not the immigrant always there to take the place? He does accept; he becomes a helot, and loves his country, which invites the unjust competition that makes him a helot.

What chance, indeed, have the poor in New York or in any of our cities? The special Committee on Standard of Living of the New York State Conference of Charities and Correction states in its report: " From investigation recently completed it appears that the two dollar a day man, who is the six hundred dollar a year man, spends on the average more than he takes in, if he have an average family of wife and three children under working age. His rent of one hundred and fifty-four dollars in New York gives him two, rarely three rooms. His food, costing two hundred and seventy dollars for the year, gives him just twenty-two and a half cents a day for himself, which is just one half-cent more than the minimum necessity for nourishment fixed by Dr. Frank P. Underhill, professor of physiological chemistry at Yale. His fuel and light, twenty-five dollars, are so little that he must collect free fuel and have his children bring in sticks from the streets. For sickness he can spend eleven dollars; for education, practically nothing, but daily papers, five dollars. For recreation, he and his wife and his three children have three dollars or twenty-five cents a month, in addition to eight dollars spent for club and church dues and taxes."

Let us take a concrete example. Go through the department stores, and in the shipping department you find men, most of them men with family, working, and working hard, for eight dollars, nine dollars, and ten dollars a week. The men work from eight to six. When, however, there is a sale, they work overtime, frequently until ten, eleven, and twelve o'clock at night. There is at least one big trash store in New York which pays its men not one cent for the overtime except during Christmas week. During that week it pays overtime for three hours, not considering the fact that the men frequently work until one and two o'clock in the morning. Is not the owner of that store a blood-sucker? Let one of his dogs growl, and out he goes. The immigrant is there to take his place.

How can these men support their families and live like human beings? They cannot. They live with their family in two holes in the wall, euphuistically called rooms or apartments, and the wife either goes to work or takes boarders. They chase their children to work before they get into their teens. In New York children four and five years of age have been found at work. In one factory three hundred children, under fourteen years of age, were working until two or three o'clock in the morning during the busy season.

And what about the law? The law against child labour cannot change the conditions which force the parents to sell their children. Suppose the law, instead of being the dead letter that it usually is, were enforced. Would it not force the parents to sell their sons and daughters to the street instead of to the factory? And, in truth, the increase of rowdyism in the cities is appalling. Let Mr. Bigelow tell you that more vagabonds infest the country roads between Chicago and New York than the country roads between any two cities a thousand miles apart in Northern Europe.

What do these stores pay to their saleswomen? Rarely more than five dollars, six dollars, or seven dollars a week. They are supposed to dress well. How can they do it and pay for board and shelter? Their salary does not enable them to live like human beings. Many of them are assisted by other members of the family, and a few others, by a rare heroism, manage to struggle along; but how about the others, who have not in them the stuff that heroines are made of, and have no one to assist them.

How do they manage? God alone knows, and perhaps the policeman on the beat. If she growls, out she goes, the immigrant is always there to take her place. Is not the economic system of the big figures on the trade-sheet a remarkable system? Why should men and women love their country, which for the sake of the big numbers on a sheet of paper exposes its men and women to an unjust competition that makes men criminals and women harlots?

The man gets sick. Well, what of it? We will give him poisoned drugs and adulterated milk when sick, as we fed him on diseased beef when healthy. We have a pure food law. Well, have we not laws against thieves, and is a big thief ever prosecuted criminally? We are a hysterical people; the moral hysteria will subside and — the law will look very well on the paper! The law demands that the ingredients of the nostrums that are sold in the market must be plainly published. When he has his next "cold" he will probably have sense enough to take a course in materia medica before going to the drug store and buying a catarrh powder! Pure food laws ! Many of the old laws are not enforced. What guarantee is there that the new ones will be enforced — after the moral hysteria has subsided?

The man dies. What of it? Is a man not cheaper than a mule? And is the immigrant not always there to take his place?

The man becomes permanently incapable of working. This is a free country; free press, free speech, and free contract labour are humbugs. He has, however, the liberty to hang himself. Has he? If the rope tears, he is arrested and sent to the penitentiary. He has the liberty to starve. He cannot be deprived of that; but it is a liberty that he can do very well without.

Free immigration can be defended by those only who hold that the government exists for the sole purpose of enabling the country to turn out this year a million more matches than the year before, who are induced to hilarity because America turns out this year a million more toothpicks than Germany or England; by those who believe that the chief aim of government is to enable Wall Street gamblers to bathe themselves in champagne this year, when they drank it last year; by vampires, railroads, contractors, and mine-owners; by all those, in short, who believe that the balance-sheet is the soul and essence of civilization.

A nation, a government is constituted, not for the purpose of feeding the greatest number of human animal?, but for the purpose of making possible the development of efficient and noble men and women. If it fails in that respect, it is a complete failure and has lost the right to continue its existence.

Civilization is measured, not by good machines, not by political institutions, not by scientific progress, and not even by the holy balance-sheet; it is measured by social, intellectual, moral, and spiritual progress and perfection. An immigration that does not conduce to these is degrading civilization.

In the economic life of the nation conditions exist which are the perpetual threat of an earthquake; in the industrial world we are now living on the top of a volcano.

Paul Bourget says: "Factors are at work in the United States which are gradually dividing America into two Americas, into an American and a cosmopolitan America, which have absolutely nothing in common, neither blood, nor ideas, nor ideals, nor traditions. The phrases of general reform have in the United States not more meaning and not more honest adherents than in France. Behind these problems quiver convulsively other real, irreducible powers. Race instinct is one of these forces. When the excess of immigration will have produced two Americas, the conflict will be as irrepressible as that between England and Ireland, or Germany and France. As soon as the second America will have produced an even more abnormal national life, civil war will break out."

Civil war in a race jumble is perpetual civil war, and the periods of truce that interrupt it are periods only of utter exhaustion. Every man's hand is against every other man. There is no possible basis on which the factions can agree. Where blood is not in common, nothing is. The first race that attacks the nondescript herd will destroy it. Nothing occurs in the United States that has not occurred elsewhere. Carthage was a relatively greater industrial centre than New York; Hellas was in every way greater and Rome more powerful than America. The cause that has destroyed these will not be less powerful in America, the modern Rome. There is no destiny that ensures our perpetuity.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 32961
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Race or Mongrel, by Alfred P. Schultz

Postby admin » Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:17 am

CHAPTER XXV: IMMIGRATION: ANGLO-SAXONS AND GERMANS

The eternal peace fiends tell us that, as the commercial relations become more extensive and more firmly established, the different peoples of the earth are becoming more and more alike, so that in a short time the same kind of hotchpotch will inhabit or infest the world, — a statement which contains as much truth as the Socialist slogan that all men are the same kind of Hottentots. A hundred years ago the white world was gorged with French phrases, one of which concerned the equality of men. For a long time it was intoxicated with these phrases, and the Socialists have not yet become sober. The peace fiends are more of a menace to the country they live in than Socialists. When better men, including the Socialists, will rush to the defence of their country, the peace fiends will still be whining "arbitration, disarmament, conference, Hague," and what not.

The eternal peace mania is not in accord with human nature. By natural instincts, boys love the heroes of old and desire to emulate them, and arms have an irresistible attraction for men. The eternal peace fiends will say that is the bulldog in us; to which the answer may be returned, that the bulldog in us is better than the whining cur in them. We will have eternal peace as soon as we all have become cretins. The probability that we all will become cretins is much greater than the probability that the mouse will ever kiss the cat. Peace fiends tell us that arbitration is a wonderful invention of theirs. It is not theirs, nor is it as good as they want to make us believe. Time out of mind people have settled many of their differences by treaty, agreement, arbitration, or conference. It is not an honour to be a party to many arbitration cases. The man who holds his goods justly, or considers himself as holding them justly, does not arbitrate; the thief, however, is willing to shout arbitration every time he is caught. (Note.)

Some nations improve, others deteriorate. It is right that the better overthrows and supplants the inferior. And who will decide which is the better? The wisdom of the peace fiends? They will say, perhaps: "We have a full stomach, and want sleep. That nation is the better which has the greater capacity for sleep."

When chaos gave birth to cosmos it was by differentiation, by the development of its different parts in different directions. And the longer the development proceeded, the greater the differences became. The man travelling from England to France and from France to Germany meets in these three countries three distinct races. However much alike they were two thousand years ago, to-day they are three distinct races. The English crossed to a small extent with the Celts, and later with the Normans; and, be it remembered, that, although the Normans had been differentiated from the English for not many centuries, it required several centuries before the fusion of the English with the Normans was complete. Three hundred years after the battle of Hastings English was first recognized by the courts as the national tongue. The Germans crossed with Celts and Slavs. The fusion was likewise not complete before the lapse of several centuries. And in both cases the fusion was followed by centuries of inbreeding. The Anglo-Saxons were originally a German tribe. For fifteen hundred years, however, their development has been independent of and different from that of the other German tribes. The people they crossed with were not the same as those the Germans crossed with. In each case those elements of the foreign race which were in harmony with the Teutonic race were absorbed, and those characteristics which were out of harmony with the genius of the Teutonic stock were expelled, the period of inbreeding following the crossing having been long. The elements absorbed differed in each case, and this absorption, followed by the development of centuries, made them two distinct races. And with every century the difference becomes greater. Shakespeare is much more a German poet than Gothe is an English poet; not because the one is greater than the other (they are both incommensurable), but because between Shakespeare and Gothe lies the development of two hundred years. The two races have developed from the same centre along different radii, and the greater the distance they travel on these radii, the greater the gulf that separates them.

When Germany and England had developed, each in its own way, for a thousand years, the two had become so different and distinct that they must be spoken of as two distinct races. Both recognized that they had become different and distinct. In the later middle ages the Germans knew little of England and cared less. Everything that was not German was "Welsch," and, if it was particularly absurd, it was "Spanisch." This included England. England was as ignorant of the Germans as the Germans were of England. To the English everything that was absurd and contemptible was Dutch (German). German was the language of sorcery. One of Fletcher's dramas says: "In what language shall I conjure in: High Dutch, that's full in the mouth." At the time when in England no gentleman went sober to bed, German drunkenness was ridiculed. "The drunken Dutch," "Dutch bellied," "Dutchman-like drinking," became current phrases. A "Dutch bargain" is so called because, as it was said, "many Dutchman will never bargain but when they are drunk." German courage is ridiculed as the courage of the drunkard. "Dutch courage" — "A gill of brandy, the best thing in the world to inspire courage in a Dutchman." The expressions, "Dutch comfort," "Dutch breeches," "Dutch gold," "Dutch concert," became current. The chastity of the German girls was ridiculed. Chapman, in his "Alphonsus," says:

"I think the girls in Germany are mad.
E'er they be married, they will not kiss,
And being married, will not go to bed."


To the English the German language was a barbaric tongue spoken by a race of heathens.

It is clear that the two people had developed into two distinct races, and the development of fifteen hundred years cannot be undone in America any more than anywhere else. It follows that they can no longer cross promiscuously with impunity. Promiscuous crossing of the two races will lead to the deterioration of both, and as they are the best two races that the world has, the degeneration of even a few of them is an inestimable loss to the world. The denationalization of a strong race, without thorough absorption by another strong race, always and without exception spells degeneration. Let us examine the German-Americans.

Note. At the dedication of a church the minister's remarks were interrupted by the cackling of a hen. One of the bystanders remarked, " That hen evidently thinks it has laid the foundation."

A fable which, if not found in AEsop, might be there: "At last universal peace has been established." Says Mr. Fox, "We will at last devour our fowls without being continually on the lookout for these infernal shotguns that malicious foxophobiacs invented."

"Der Mensch will Eintracht; aber die Natur weiss besser, was fur seinse Gattung gut ist: Sie will Zwietracht" (Kant).
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 32961
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Race or Mongrel, by Alfred P. Schultz

Postby admin » Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:36 am

CHAPTER XXVI: IMMIGRATION: THE GERMAN-AMERICANS

In this chapter the term German-Americans stands for the descendants of the German immigrants, not for the immigrants. A man can change his political affiliation, but he cannot get out of his skin. The virtues and abilities of the immigrant shed lustre on the country of his birth rather than on the country of his adoption. What is said of the German-American applies to the Scandinavian-American as well.

The history of politics, of art, or morals, of philosophy, of the sciences, of literature, and of music does not permit the Anglo-Saxon to claim superiority over the German. The history of commerce likewise forbids it. The Germans had their Hansa times. Incessant warfare for religious liberty and for national existence destroyed the greatness of the Hansa. Hansa times have come back. There was a time, not many years ago, when the German flag was rare in American harbours. Look over the lists any day and see the number of German ships that enter American ports to-day. Germany sends vessels to every seaboard. Germans take the cream of the trade with the Levant; their South American trade is growing by leaps and bounds; they go to Bombay, Calcutta, Melbourne, Montreal, Egypt, and the West Indies. They succeed in crowding the British out of their own colonies. England itself is flooded with German goods. The history of commerce does not substantiate any Anglo-Saxon superiority over the Germans. The two races, the two best that humanity has produced, are equals.  

The history of politics, of morals, of commerce, of philosophy, of the sciences, of art, of literature, and of music, does not evince any superiority of the American Anglo-Saxon over the European Anglo-Saxon. Any superiority of the Anglo-Saxon American over the German-American therefore can have one cause and one cause only. The deterioration of the German-American. Is there any such Anglo-Saxon superiority in America?

Between the years 1821 and 1900 5,083,518 Germans came to America, and in this number are not included the Germans who came from Switzerland, Netherlands, Austro-Hungary, and Russia. The addition of these will raise the number above six millions. Many Germans came before 1821. Germans have come to America for more than two hundred years. The Germans have not adopted the two-children system. They believe that if a race is worth something, the more there are of that race the better for the world. The Anglo-Saxon French contention that restricting the quantity improves the quality cannot be maintained. Destroying one-half of a diamond does not increase the value of the other half. As the Germans did not bring the two-children system with them, the number of their descendants must be at least fifteen million, and is probably greater. According to German-American statistics it is twenty million. Perhaps this is right. The number of Anglo-Saxon Americans is not greater than that. If the two races remained equal in America, the number of men of German descent who helped to make the country great is equal to the number of men of similar calibre of Anglo-Saxon descent. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

It is remarkable that good histories of America have been written which do not mention the German-Americans at all. Steuben, De Kalb, Schurz, Franz Lieber, Herkimer, Stallo, Praetorius, and Raster were immigrants. Have as many men of German descent been prominent in American history as men of Anglo-Saxon descent?

A list of the candidates for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, a list of more than two hundred names, does not include a single German name.

The Second Continental Congress considered definitely the question of independence. A committee was elected by ballot to propose a full declaration. It consisted of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston. The commissioners sent to France during the war were Benjamin Franklin, Silas Deane, and Arthur Lee. The American commissioners to the treaty of peace were Jay, Franklin, Adams, and Laurens. The generals and military leaders in the war for independence were Washington, Wayne, Sumter, Marion, Morgan, Ward, Putnam, Greene, Lee, Schuyler, Gates, Pomeroy, Montgomery, Heath, Thomas, Spencer, Sullivan, Moultrie, Lincoln, and Paul Jones.

For the convention called to meet in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, May 14, 1787, the States sent their ablest men to represent them. The most prominent were Washington, Edmund Randolph, George Mason, Madison, George Wythe, Hamilton, Rufus King, Strong, Gerry, Franklin, Robert Morris, Gouverneur Morris, James Wilson, Paterson, Sherman, Johnson, Ellsworth, Rutledge, and the two Pinkneys. Not one German-American in the beginning of the country's independent history the equal of these Anglo-Saxon Americans.

In the war of 1812 the military leaders were: Generals Harrison, Hull, Jackson, Brown, Scott, Macomb, Commodore Decatur, Commodore Macdonough, Captains Porter, Hull, Jones, Perry, Allen, Stewart, and Burrows. The United States peace commissioners were Adams, Bayard, Clay, Russel, and Gallatin. In the war of 1812 not one of the generals, not one of the sea-captains, not one of the statesmen, has a German name. Not one German-American the equal of these Anglo-Saxon Americans.

In the Mexican War we have the generals Taylor, Kearney, Fremont, Doniphan, Scott. Not one German name.

The leaders in the Civil War were: Lincoln, Seward, Generals McClellan, Stone, Fremont, Hunter, Halleck, Grant, Butler, Sherman, Buell, Thomas, Pope, Banks, Shields, McDowell, Burnside, Hooker, Nelson, Wallace, Rosecrans, Gillmore, Sedgwick, Meade, McPherson, Seymour, Hancock, Terry, Wilson, Colonel Mulligan, Commodores Farragut, Porter, Foote, Stringham, Dupont, Goldsborough, Captains Wilkes, Lyon, Winslow, Jefferson Davis, Generals Beauregard, Lee, Jackson, Ewell, Evans, Polk, Price, McCullagh, Johnston, Bragg, Kirby Smith, Longstreet, Hill, Hood, Captains Davis, Semmes. Neither on land nor at sea, neither on the Northern nor on the Southern side, does one German-American distinguished leader appear. The Germans always had military genius in abundance, but in America it has been Americanized out of them. The Germans always were fond of the sea. They had their Hansa times, and as soon as the empire was founded Hansa times reappeared. In America the Hansa spirit has been Americanized out of them. The Germans are, as we know, not devoid of literary ability; Germany has a veritable Minnesanger Zeit now. Have the traditions of German literary life been maintained by the Americans of German descent? Who are the men that created American literature? Among historians are George Bancroft, Richard Hildreth, Jared Sparks, Prescott, Irving, Motley, Ticknor, Parkman. In polite literature we have Irving, Cooper, Charles Brockden, Brown, Poe, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Holmes, Willis, Lowell, Artemus Ward, Channing, Parker, Emerson, Longfellow, Thoreau, Halleck, Bayard Taylor, Bryant, Whitman, Whittier, Stoddard, Stedman, Aldrich, Read, Leland, Gilder, Fawcett, Helen Hunt Jackson, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Lucy Larcom, Celia Thaxter, Trowbridge, Hayne, Lanier, Howells, Hay, Bret Harte, Joaquin Miller, Carleton, Field, Henry James, Mark Twain, Cable, Miss Jewett, Rose Terry Cook, Elizabeth Stuart Phelps, Mary Wilkins, Mary Murfree, Hale, Stockton, Wallace, Annie Fellows Johnston, Louisa Alcott, Julian Hawthorne, Mitchel, Higginson, Curtis, and Burroughs. Not one German-American appears in the list. (From this list no writer of eminence is intentionally omitted.) The traditions of literary life have in America not been maintained by the descendants of the German immigrants. Literary ability has been Americanized out of them.

German influences have made American music. Almost all American composers have studied in Germany. The prominent teachers that have come from Europe have been Germans or musicians trained in the German school. It is estimated that of Germans at least fifty per cent, understand music. No other race brings so large a volume of intelligent appreciation to the art. It is among Germans that music attains its noblest heights. The Germans are a musical nation, — the musical nation. Have the descendants of the Germans in America retained their musical abilities? Mr. Rupert Hughes in "Contemporary American Composers" (L. C. Page & Company, Boston), gives the following list of American composers: Edward MacDowell, Edgar Stillman Kelley, Harvey Washington Loomis, Ethelbert Nevin, John Philip Sousa, Henry Schoenfeld, John Knowles Paine, Horatio W. Parker, Frank van der Stucken, George Whitfield Chadwick, Arthur Foote, Henry K. Hadley, Adolph M. Foerster, Charles Crozart Converse, Louis Adolph Coerne, Henry Hoi den Huss, Harry Rowe Shelley, Frederick Field Bullard, Homer A. Norris, Frederick Grant Gleason, William H. Sherwood, A. J. Goodrich, Wilson G. Smith, Mrs. H. H. A. Beach, Margaret Ruthven Lang, Maurice Arnold, N. Clifford Page, Dudley Buck, Howard Brockway, Gerrit Smith, Homer N. Bartlett, C. B. Hawley, John Hyatt Brewer, Reginald de Koven, Victor Harris, William Mason, Albert Ross Parsons, Arthur Nevin, C. Whitney Coombs, J. Remington Fairlamb, Rubin Goldmark, Frank Seymour Hastings, John M. Loretz, Richard Henry Warren, Smith N. Penfield, Frank Taft, Charles Fonteyn Manney, Arthur Farwell, Harry Hopkins, Carl V. Lachmund, G. E. Whiting, G. W. Marstons, Clayton Johns, William Arms Fisher, James C. D. Parker, Charles Dennee, B. L. Whelpley, W. H. Neidlinger, Johan H. Beck, James H. Rogers, Patty Stair, William Schuyler, Irene Baumgras, Mrs. Clara Kern, Laura Sedgwick Collins, Fanny M. Spencer, Julie Riveking, Harriet P. Sawyer, Mrs. Jessie L. Gaynor, Constance Maud, Jenny Prince Black, Charlotte M. Crane, Helen Hood, and Louis Moreau Gottschalk.

Observe in this list the very small number of German- l Americans. Frank van der Stucken is one of the most important musicians of our times. He was born in Texas in 1858. His father is a Fleming (i. e. a German), his mother a German. After the Civil War the family returned to Europe. In 1878 Frank van der Stucken began his studies in Leipzig. Later he was kapellmeister at the Breslau Stadt-Theater. As an adult he returned to America. He is of German birth, of German education and training, and his sentiments are German. He does not belong in a list of American composers. He is a German musician living for the time being in America. This takes the most important name out of the list of American composers.

Among the foreign-born Mr. Hughes mentions the following: C. M. Loeffler, Bruno Oscar Klein, Leopold Godowsky, Victor Herbert, Walter Damrosch, Julius Eichberg, Hugh C. Clark, Lois V. Saar, Otto Singer, Asgar Hamerik, August Hyllested, Xavier Scharwenka, Rafael Joseffy, Constantin von Sternberg, Adolph Koelling, August Spanuth, Aimee Lachaume, Max Vogrich, W. C. Seeboeck, Julian Edwards, Robert Coverley, William Furst, Gustav Kerker, Henry Waller, F. A. Schnecker, Clement R. Gale, Edmund Severn, Platon Brounoff, Richard Burmeister, Augusto Rotoli, Emil Liebling, Carl Busch, John Orth, Ernst Perabo, Ferdinand Dunkley, Mrs. Clara Rogers, Miss Lewing, and Mrs. Young.

In this list observe the very great number of German names. In music as in literature, in literature as in the military and naval arts and sciences, the inferiority of the German-American to the Anglo-Saxon American or to the German is phenomenal. The Germans are in every way superior to their American descendants.

Among the great American inventors there is not one German- American. The principal American inventions are, probably, the lightning-rod by Franklin; the steamship, by Fulton; the telegraph, by Morse; the telephone, by Bell; the use of anaesthetics in surgery, by Morton; the reaping-machine by McCormick; the intubation tube, by O'Dwyer; the method of vulcanizing rubber, by Goodyear; and the sewing-machine, by Hunt and Elias Howe. The inventive genius is evidently Americanized out of the American descendants of the Germans.

Prof. Karl Lamprecht, in his "Americana," speaks of American painting and mentions the following names: Copley, Gilbert Stuart, Trumbull, Allston, Cummings, Dunlop, Durand, Inman, I. F. Kensett, Thomas Cole, Doughty, Innes, Wyant, Homer Martin, James M. Hart, Gaudens, Eaton, Warner, Gifford, and Tiffany. Where are the names of the German-American artists? They are not there, they do not exist. Is the Holbein, Rembrandt, Rubens, and Durer spirit dead in the Germans of to-day? The fact is that some of the work of contemporary German painters ranks with the best that the world has ever produced. Arnold Boecklin ranks with the greatest painters in the history of the art. He is the poet of the brush. Hans von Marees, Franz von Lenbach, Anselm Feuerbach, and Wilhelm Leibl are a few of the Germans doing some of the best work that is being done in the world. There are many painters in Germany, and art activity is very great. In the art of painting the German-American is as inferior to the German as he is to the Anglo-Saxon American.

In architecture Germany does some of the best work that is being done to-day. Its tendencies there are higher than anywhere else. The Germans have recognized that the eternal imitation of the Greek orders and their modifications is not art. They have recognized that oak is a material differing from marble, demanding and deserving treatment of its own. Architecture should express stability, security, harmony, and conformity to its surroundings. This ideal German architects strive to realize. Where is the architecture of a German-American?

A German paper printed a list of names of men that it considered worthy of a place in the Hall of Fame. These were the names: George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, Salmon Portland Chase, Stephen A. Douglas, James A. Garfield, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, William H. Seward, Charles Sumner, Daniel Webster, Ulysses Grant, Philip Sheridan, Robert E. Lee, Winfield Scott, Zachary Taylor, David Glascoe Farragut, Peter Cooper, William Lloyd Garrison, George Peabody, John Hancock, Rufus Choate, Robert Fulton, Samuel B. Morse, Eli Whitney, Henry Ward Beecher, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Edward Everett, Horace Greeley, W. H. Prescott, Noah Webster, William Cullen Bryant, J. Fenimore Cooper, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Washington Irving, H. W. Longfellow, Edgar Allan Poe, and Horace Mann. Not one German-American in the list.

It would seem that the German-Americans were destined to establish the link between German and American culture. Have they done so? No. They failed in this respect, as in every other respect. The relation between German and American culture was established by Anglo-Saxon Americans who went to Germany for the purpose of study; particularly the Harvard men, George Ticknor, Edward Everett, Longfellow, and others.

The traditions of German intellectual life have in no respect been maintained.

The first generation of German-Americans begins to show signs of decay and deterioration. They are not the equals of the Anglo-Saxons or of the Germans. Prof. Karl Lamprecht and Prof. Karl Knortz speak of them with contempt. Prof. Lamprecht, in "Americana," writes: "Man sehe nur die Rolle, die dem typischen Deutschen im americanischen Lustspiel wie in der komischen Literature zufaellt. Da ist er der Maun der Uberall zu spat kommt, immer viel will, und wenig erreicht, von den anderen im stillen oder im lauten verachtet, wenn auch voll einiger Zuge Deutscher Gemutlichkeit. Diese Karrikatur redet doch bis zu einem gewissen Grade wahr, und jedenfalls ist sie bis ins kleinste durchgearbeitet und Produkt langer Beobachtung durch dritte. Ist das genug fur eine heitere Zukunft und wurdig einer grossen nationalen Vergangenheit? Bang und bitter muss es ausgesprochen werden: Der Deutsche als Deutscher versagt. Es ist nicht einmal an dem dass er der bekannte Volkerdiinger ware. Er steht geistig keineswegs besonders hoch; schreiben und lesen kann heute am Ende jeder besserr Neger, und in der Energie des Denkens, die zunachst in America verlangt wird, ubertrifft ihn der Englander gewiss, vermutlich auch der Slave. Wer die Biergarten Milwaukee's besucht hat, insbesondere den ungluckseligen Pabstpark, das Muster einer kindischen und stumpfsinnigen Anlage moderner sogenannter Vergnugungstempel der muss sich sagen, dass eine Bevolkerung, die solche Lokale besucht und in naivster Weise schatzt, nicht dazu geeignet ist, in America geistig zu konkurriren.

"Dazu der traurige Mangel an politischem Verstandniss. Man rede nicht von der politischen Misswirtschaft in den Vereinigten Staaten. Hatten die Deutschen uberhaupt Lust an der Politik so hatten sie den politischen-moralischen Status verbessern konnen. Aber sie sind einer Beteiligung an der Politik einfach nicht faehig."  

Translation: "Consider the part played by the typical German in American comedy and the comic press; it is he who always and everywhere is too late, who is quietly or openly despised by others, even though he has many traits of German good nature. This caricature is true to a certain extent. It is represented in its smallest details and is the result of long observation (by others). Does this speak well for a bright future and worthy of a great national past? The truth must be out, however unpleasant and humiliating it may be, the German-American is a failure. He is not even a fertilizing element in the community; intellectually he is by no means on a high level. Every decent negro can write and read nowadays. . And in energy of thought, which is of prime importance in America, he is surpassed by the English, presumably also by the Slav. Any one who has visited the beer-gardens of Milwaukee, particularly the miserable Pabst Park — an example of so-called modern recreation grounds, that are remarkable for childishness and stupidity, will be convinced that a people that frequents and values such places for recreation and entertainment is not intellectually capable of successful competition in America.

"Then we have the sad incapacity in the field of politics. Let him not complain of political corruption in the United States. Had the German-Americans in general taken interest in politics, they would have been able to improve the politico-moral status. The fact is that they are incapable of participation in politics."

Professor Knortz writes: "Das Graulichste aber sind die sogenannten literarischen Vereine. Mich uberlaufts wenn ich daran denke, welcher Missbrauch mit dieser Bezeichnung in America getrieben wird. Jedem Kaffeeklatsch, jedem Kneip und Karten Abend muss jener Name zur Beschonigung dienen. . . . Wo sich Deutsche versammeln da wird auch Bier verzapft. Nach dem griechischen Philosophen Thales ist alles aus Wasser entstanden; das Bestztum der deutsch-amerikanischen Kirchen, Gesang und Turnvereine ist meist auf den Bierverkauf zuruckzufuhren. Manche dieser Organisationen sollten sich zum Wappen ein Bier-fasschen wahlen und darunter die Inschrift setzen ' In hoc signo vinces.' Kein Wunder dass die Deutschen immer mannhaft zusammenhalten und zahlreiche Protestversammlungen veranstalten, wenn der Bierverkauf in Gefahr gerat, oder wenn am Sonntag die Wirtschaften geschlossen werden. Da ist die personliche Freiheit, wie es heisst, gefahrdet und dies darf unter keinen Umstanden geduldet werden."

Translation: "Horrifying are the so-called literary clubs. I feel cold shivers when I think of what that name has to stand for. It serves as a plausible excuse for every gossipy tea-party, drinking-bout or card-party. Wherever Germans congregate, beer is on tap. According to the Greek philosopher Thales, water was the origin of all things; the origin of the property belonging to German-American churches, musical societies, and turnvereine is mostly the sale of beer. Many of these organizations should adopt a beer-cask as a coat of arms, with the words, 'In hoc signo vinces,' as a motto. It is not a matter of surprise, therefore, that the German-Americans stand manfully together and hold numerous meetings of protest when the consumption of beer is interfered with or the saloons are closed Sundays. For personal liberty is then said to be in danger, and that is a serious matter."

I have before me a pastoral letter, which reads as follows:

"Pro Bono Publico

National German-American Alliance of the United States of America.
 
"Philadelphia, Pa.

"An open letter to the German-Americans and the other tolerant and liberal-minded voters of _____ (State):

"The Executive Committee of the National German-American Alliance, a patriotic American organization, requests the German-Americans and all liberal-minded voters of the State of to join the ward clubs which the branches of the State Alliance are organizing for the election of men who are imbued with the spirit of the founders of our great republic, and who have the divine right of personal liberty at heart; men who, as we do, consider Prohibition laws like the _____ laws, as tending to increase drunkenness and vice; men who will endeavour to have this obnoxious law repealed. The time has come for fanaticism and hypocrisy to demask, and for voters to be independent of those party leaders who have become the tools of fanatics. The National German-American Alliance, being strictly nonpartisan, calls all tolerant and liberal-minded voters to throw aside party affiliations, whenever the rights of personal liberty are at stake.

"We make it our duty to oppose candidates who favour or uphold Prohibition measures, as they tend to increase intemperance, because we favour true temperance, and indorse men who have the courage of their convictions.

"We indorse with great pleasure the Honourable _____. (He) was one of the first ... to comprehend that the . . . Prohibition measure ... is unconstitutional. He upheld the sovereignty of the people and the constitution of the United States, and did not hesitate to submit a minority report. His arguments helped to kill the bill. . . .

"For the Executive Committee of the National German-American Alliance:

"_____, President,
" _____, Secretary."


Beer, beer, beer, Holy Saint Beer! Temperance laws in America are apparently inconsistent with the divine right of personal liberty.

Professor Knortz continues: "Der Leipziger Naturwissenschaftler Werner Stille veroffentlichte kiirzlich in der Zeitschrift 'Die Alcoholfrage' einen Artikel uber die schadlichen Wirkungen des Alcoholgenusses auf die Deutschen in America. Der Verfasser glaubt, auf Grund seiner angeblich erschopfenden Ermittelungen die Ansicht aussprechen zu durfen, dass das gewohnheit-smassige Bier trinken eine groesere Sterblichkeit in rustigen Jahren unter den Deutsch-Americanern verursache, als unter den Anglo-Americanern. Letztere seien fast durchgangig abstinent. Dieser Umstand sei auch die Ursache, dass die Deutsch-Americaner fur geistige Dinge weit weniger Interesse bekundeten als die Anglo-Americaner. Jeder ins Leben gerufene Vereine werde binnen kurzem zum Bier klub. Die Lesesale und Bibliotheken standen leer, wahrend die Biersale gepackt voll seien."

Translation: "Recently Werner Stille, a scientist of Leipzig, drew attention in the periodical, 'The Alcohol Question,' to the injurious effect upon the German-Americans of the indulgence in alcohol. Basing his conclusions upon exhaustive research, he considers he is justified in declaring that the habitual indulgence in beer superinduces greater mortality among the robust middle-aged German-Americans than among the Anglo-Americans. The latter are almost total abstainers. This accounts for the fact that the German-Americans take far less interest in intellectual pursuits than the Anglo-Americans do. Every new-fledged society evolves in a short time into a beer club. Reading-rooms and libraries are deserted, while beer saloons are crowded."

Saint Beer has become what Saint Cow is to the Hindoos. The German educational system is one of the best in the world, yet the different societies, lodges, singing societies, turnvereine, working men's organizations, labour unions, young men's associations, women's associations, and others, demanded further improvement. They formed an organization, the purpose of which is to supply all lodges, singing societies, sick-benefit organizations, turnvereine and other societies which so desire, with lecturers, demonstrators, and teachers. In the year 1905, 4,887 societies participated, among these lodges, sick-benefit organizations, women's organizations, turnvereine, 758 working men's associations and labour unions, and other societies and clubs. Many of these societies have as many as forty lectures, demonstrations, and concerts during the season.

How do the German-American organizations compare with these German societies? According to the annual report of the " North-American Turnerbund," 237 vereine belonged to the Bund. In these 237 vereinen were delivered one hundred lectures during the season. In very few only of the German-American societies does a desire for intellectual improvement exist, and in general, there is not the slightest inclination for intellectual culture. Even leading German-American societies, which are in a flourishing condition financially, have for such purposes not a cent in the treasury. They content themselves with the repetition of programmes that are essentially the same from year to year: during the winter two or three concerts, and so many dances, one or two balls, card-parties, bachelor reunions, and Narrensitzungen. According to Hind's Classic German Dictionary Sitzung means sitting, session, seat, meeting; and Narr means fool, buffoon, lunatic, madman, idiot. What the compound means I do not know, it does not appear in Hind's Classic Dictionary.

The German-American societies are vastly inferior to the German societies.

The opinion has been advanced that in building up the country the German-Americans have employed all their genius. The German-Americans have not helped to make the country more than have the Anglo-Saxon Americans. What caused the utter sterility, the lethargy, the mental death of the German-Americans? Is it a flaw in the German character? Fifty years ago Germany was politically a chaos; socially, in the middle ages; economically, in a condition similar to that of Thibet. To-day Germany is also one of the great powers. The Germans have built up a great country, and had to overcome obstacles greater than those which we had to contend with. In the building up of Germany the high qualities of the Germans were not stamped out.

To-day Germany marches at or near the front of progress. In industry, in commerce, in the construction of ships, in growth of wealth and income, in education, in history, in scientific activity and research, and in music Germany holds the leadership. It stands first also in the cultivation of the soul. No other country brings so large a volume of intelligent appreciation to the arts. Literature, poetry, music, the plastic arts, and the stage exert a powerful influence in Germany. Shakespeare has greater popularity in Germany than in England or in America. There is nothing degenerate about the Germans.

Had the German-Americans retained the abilities and virtues of the Germans, as the Anglo-Saxon Americans retained the virtues and abilities of the European Anglo-Saxons, the leadership in literature, music, philosophy, and all the arts and sciences, would be held by America. The German-Americans did not do their share. They failed utterly. That in comparison with Anglo-Saxons or Germans the German-Americans are degenerate, cannot be denied. What caused their deterioration?

One cause is the neglect of their mother tongue. (v. Chapter XVI.) It frequently happens that parents cannot converse with their children. The absurd rapidity with which they discarded their .mother tongue has not made them better citizens, but it has made them less able citizens. There is no reason whatsoever for discarding the mother tongue in the acquirement of the English language. Prof. Julius Gobel says: "Why have the many millions of German-Americans accomplished so very little for the higher mental life of our country? Because in discarding their mother tongue they choked the source of life from which high mental activity subconsciously proceeds."

There is another and still more important cause. The Anglo-Saxon Americans objected to clannishness yet practised it to a large extent. The Irish-Americans preached and practised clannishness, as long as America was Teutonic, for religious reasons. The Germans who came to America after the revolutionary disturbances were liberals, who were afflicted with French phrases. The wisdom of the French revolution was with them the end of all wisdom. That all men were created equal was to them a self-evident truth, a practice, not a mere theory. They had solved all problems, there was no God in heaven and no race on earth. Hence their tendency to intermarry with other races was extreme. Promiscuous crossing has the same effect in America as everywhere else. The German-Americans deteriorated, degenerated, because their race, their blood, was not sacred to them. They squandered their inheritance, and degenerated because they deserved to degenerate.

Es taten seine Enkel sich
Ihs Erbteil gar abdrehen;
Und huben jedermanniglich,
Anmutig an z u krahen.

Und schleudern elend durch die Welt,
Wie Kiirbisse, von Buben
Zu Menschenkopfen ausgeholt,
Die Schadel leere Stuben.

"Wie Wein von einem Chemicus
Durch die Retort getrieben,
Zum Teufel ist der Spiritus,
Das Phlegma ist geblieben."

-- Schiller.


Read: The History of the United States; "Americana," by Prof. Karl Lamprecht; "Deutsch in America," by Prof. Karl Knortz; "Contemporary American Composers," by Rupert Hughes.

Note. "Ich habe zu Gott geflehet, dass er die ganze Bierbrauerei verderben mochte. . . . Ich habe den ersten Bierbrauer oft verwtinscht. Es wird mit dem Brauen so viel Getreide verderbet, dass man da von ganz Deuschland mochte erhalten." -- Martin Luther, "Tischreden."
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 32961
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Race or Mongrel, by Alfred P. Schultz

Postby admin » Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:25 am

CHAPTER XXVII: IMMIGRATION: THE PAN-EUROPEAN IN AMERICA

At the beginning of the nineteenth century the United States had about five million inhabitants. To these five million and their descendants were added in the nineteenth century more than nineteen million people and their descendants. The following table gives the nationality and number of the immigrants between the years 1821 and 1903:

Country / 1821-1900 / 1900-1903

Great Britain / 2,974,954 / 65,590
Ireland / 4,076,425 / 94,999
Germany / 5,083,518 / 90,041
Switzerland / 204,993 / 8,528
Netherlands / 133,183 / 8,634
Belgium / 64,778 / 7,616
Denmark, Sweden, Norway / 1,437,390 / 170,919
France / 404,499 / 11,845
Italy / 1,045,531 / 544,993
Spain, Portugal / 29,777 / 22,346
Russia / 995,149 / 328,697
Austro-Hungary / 1,033,244 / 491,390


In addition to these, Balcanaks, immigrants from China, Japan, other parts of Asia, from Africa, British America, from Cuba, Porto Rico, Mexico, Central America, and South America.

In the year 1900 there were more than ten million people in the United States of foreign birth.

Great Britain / 1,171,934
Russia / 642,256  
Ireland / 1,619,469
Austro-Hungary / 638,019
Germany / 2,819,396
Italy / 484,703
Denmark, Sweden, Norway / 1,076,677
Mexico / 103,445
South America / 34,352
 

In 1904 the number of immigrants was 812,870; in 1905 it was 1,026,499; in 1906 it was 1,200,735; in 1907 it was 1,333,166. In the public schools of New York are children of eighty-two nationalities. The bulk of our present immigration is from Italy, Austro-Hungary and Russia. Entire races are transplanted to America. The number of Sicilians we "absorb" is greater than the birth-rate of Southern Italy. The Croatians, Slovaks, and Slovenians of Austro-Hungary are similar cases. Besides these, Austro-Hungary sends Magyars, Ruthenians, Dalmatians, Bosnians, Czechs, Herzegovinians, Moravians, Italians, and Jews.

Russia sends Jews, Poles, Finns, Lithuanians, Livonians, Ruthenians, Russians, and others. Greece sends many immigrants. Southeastern and Southern Europeans (with the exception of the South Americans the most mongrelized people of the world) form the bulk of our immigration; nationalities that now are, and that for centuries have been, the pariahs of better races, infinitely inferior to the much-maligned Turk. Their presence cannot but deteriorate and make impossible the development of an American race. The East Slavs inject the blood of yellow races into our veins. How thoroughly mongrelized they are, the writings of Prince Uchtomsky give an inkling.

He states that the relation of Russia with Chinese and Turks is closer than that with Europeans, and recommends that Russia consider the yellow element of her constituents the basis of her power. Mexicans and South Americans inject Indian and negro blood. South Europeans inject negro blood. It is blood that tells in the end. Education has little or no effect. Naturam expelles furca, tamen usque recurret. The future of Germany is in the blood, is the German axiom. The future of America is in the blood.

People that carry coloured blood in their veins no longer object to breeding with the coloured races (marriage that form of bastardization cannot be called). The nationalities mentioned inject the blood of coloured races. The final result will be mongrelization. The California girl, no longer a beauty, will seek love and comradeship in the arms of the Corean coolie; and the Southern maiden, no longer proud, in the arms of the Congo black.

Let immigration continue and a wonderful race will in time infest this land of "unlimited impossibilities." Will it be a race? We are told that the American type is still unfinished; that "it is the unique glory of America that it has taken all the rest of the world to make it." Ours is a cosmopolitan republic. It is not more cosmopolitan a republic and not less cosmopolitan a republic than Rome was under Augustus. The time when Rome's death-agony commenced, Augustus flattered himself with having saved the republic. Had he not done so the sycophant Horace would not have praised him for it.

The demand is that the immigrant must not have old-world prejudices (synonymous with, he must have no respect for his race), he must talk and think and be United States. This demand practically all immigrants desire to fulfil. Can they do it? Is it possible for a man to creep out of his skin and into another skin? Can he throw off his mental, physical, and moral makeup, inherited through many generations? It takes generations before a homogeneous community can absorb people of another race, and thus give them a new race. What can we give the immigrants? Do we absorb them in one generation, as we pretend to do? Absurd. We can and do deprive them of the best they have, of their race, and in return we give to some of them material prosperity. They sell their inheritance for a mess of pottage.

Excessive immigration is the greatest injustice and injury to the immigrant himself.

We are told that our truly amazing assimilative power will produce the finest human race that has ever been known. The truly amazing assimilating power of Rome succeeded in destroying the Roman race, and the final result was the worthless post-Roman mongrel of the empire.  

Races are combined here in a fashion more crude than that in which the chemist combines his elements. The chemist knows that some elements combine easily; that others combine with difficulty, and separate again with ease. He knows that some elements do not combine at all. They merely mix. Other elements, when brought together, tear asunder with so great a force that the chemist will not live to see the result of his experiment.

The laws of life are simple sacred laws which govern all life, that of man not less than that of the animals. No dog fancier ever thought that the promiscuous crossing of bloodhound, terrier, greyhound, St. Bernard, pug, Newfoundland, and spaniel produces anything but worthless mongrel curs. Moral lepers. The difference between the different human races that have developed is greater than the difference between St. Bernard and pug or between Newfoundland and badger dog.

Promiscuous crossing never produces a homogeneous race, and it destroys every race, even the strongest race. Darwin writes: "Many cases are on record showing that a race may be modified by occasional crosses, if aided by the careful selection of the individuals which present the desired character; but to obtain a race between two quite distinct races would be very difficult. Sir J. Seabright expressly experimented with this object and failed. The offspring from the first cross between pure breeds is tolerably and sometimes quite uniform in character, and everything seems simple enough; but when these mongrels are crossed one with another for several generations, hardly two of them are alike, and then the difficulty of the task becomes manifest."

The laws of nature rule man as rigidly as they rule animal life.

It has been said that American institutions assimilate every race. That is confusing cause with effect. Institutions are the products of men, not men the products of institutions. Institutions founded by a great race may outlive that race for a time, but eventually they will be changed to harmonize with the changed race instinct. National character can form only in a population which is stable. The repeated introduction of other races prevents the formation of a race. Excessive immigration is destroying the Teutonic character of America. To be a man of no race is to be without character and without worth. The institutions, religion, and customs of a good race cannot remain the institutions, customs, and religion of the mongrel. They are out of harmony with his depraved instincts. The form may persist for awhile, but the spirit is dead. Let immigration continue, and an American race will never develop. Never was anything great accomplished by a mongrel herd of men. It is essential that an American race be produced, for on the solution of this problem depends not only the prosperity of the country, but its future, its very existence. Crossing must cease or America will develop into another imperial Rome. Immigration must be prohibited. Free immigration is a suicidal process, and its prohibition an act of self-preservation. Let the Northern races colonize South America. Let us cease to demand that German, English, and other colonists in South America shall become like the native vermin; and Switzerlands will flourish, where we now insist on having Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, and other collections of filth, fleas, laziness, mendacity, and utter depravity.

Spain and Portugal laid rotten eggs in South America, and the United States declared itself their incubator and brooder. We are not afraid of an English colony as our neighbour; we fear not Germany, three thousand miles away; but the thought of a New England, of a New Germany, five thousand miles away in South America, terrifies us out of our senses. Let the continent be divided among decent nations. Immigration will soon go to a decent South America. Flourishing nations will come into being, and our trade with them will be as great as our trade with England, Germany, and Canada now is. Above all, their will be no mongrelized United States. Let immigration continue, and no race will exist in America that is worth anything. The great American drama, the great American novel, will never be written, unless written very soon, for the mongrel will never produce it.

The accompanying diagram illustrates the development of America (if immigration and expansion continue), the development of the Anglo-Saxon into the Anglo-Yahoo.

Image

America Teutonic / America Anglo-Saxon / America Teutonic. The Teutons being Protestant, the Irish Catholic, intermarriages were not very common.
America Teutonic / Germans / America Teutonic. The Teutons being Protestant, the Irish Catholic, intermarriages were not very common.
America Teutonic / Dutch / America Teutonic. The Teutons being Protestant, the Irish Catholic, intermarriages were not very common.
America Teutonic / Scandinavians / America Teutonic. The Teutons being Protestant, the Irish Catholic, intermarriages were not very common.
America Teutonic / Irish / America Teutonic. The Teutons being Protestant, the Irish Catholic, intermarriages were not very common.
 
America Pan-European / Poles / --
America Pan-European / Ruthenians / --
America Pan-European / Czechs / --
America Pan-European / Bosnians / --
America Pan-European / Herzegovinians / --
America Pan-European / Croatians / Teutonic type broken up
America Pan-European / Moravians / --
America Pan-European / Magyars; Eastern Slavs / Inject blood of the yellow races
America Pan-European / South Eastern; Europeans / Inject Mongol and negro blood America Pan-European / Southern; Southwestern Europeans / Inject negro blood
America Pan-European / Mexicans; Central Americans; South Americans / Inject Indian and negro blood
America Pan-European / Peruvians / Inject Indian, negro & Mongol blood

America of the Pan-World Mongrel. Fusion complete. Confusion complete. Chaos. America of the Anglo-Yahoo. / As the amount of coloured blood in our veins increases, the objection to intermarriage with the coloured races diminishes. It has already been seriously maintained that the infusion of Japanese blood will increase certain virtues of which our supply is short; that a Japanese infusion will be good for our development. There will be added Japanese, Chinese, Coreans, other Asiatics, negroes. We have annexed Porto Rico, and shall annex Cuba, Central America, and other places. Then we shall have still more Colorado Maduro Americans to vitiate the blood.


Is it still possible to prevent the mongrelization of the United States, and to create a race here that will not be very much inferior to the Northern races of Europe? It is, if the means adopted are sufficiently rigorous. These are:

1. Prohibition of immigration. It is not necessary to settle every foot of territory within the next century; it is not necessary to open or exhaust every mine within the next hundred years. Let the immigration be turned to South American possession of the good European races. People who are worth something in South America are of more value to us than the decaying artificially preserved countries of South America, — corpses that are crying out for decent burial.

2. All expansion must cease. If we were a homogeneous race we might be able to absorb Cubans, Mexicans, and others; but, as we are not, the influx of white-Indian-negro blood can have no other effect than that of hopelessly vitiating the United States. We have too many melanoid Americans as it is. Our strength lies in limitation.

3. See to it that the people that are now in the United States do not become "Americanized" too quickly. Children of foreign parentage should know their mother tongue as well as English. Losing it, they become inferior to their ancestors. The deterioration of Germans, Swedes, Danes, and others is a loss to America, a loss to the world. (v. Chapters XVI and XXVI.) Whether South American mongrels or South European mongrels have nothing to say in English, or have nothing to say in their mother tongue, is, as far as they are concerned, a matter of indifference, but not as far as America is concerned. These people are the most mongrelized in the world, and the slower they are absorbed the better. Therefore these also should receive their education in their mother tongue.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 32961
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Race or Mongrel, by Alfred P. Schultz

Postby admin » Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:32 am

CHAPTER XXVIII: THE AMERICAN NEGRO

We enjoy the best of all possible forms of government, a representative, parliamentary government of the people, for the people, by the people. Fifty names of members of the House of Representatives include all those who are entities. Whom do the others represent? In the Senate we have Senators who could not poll one hundred votes for any office of honour, profit, or trust within the gift of the public. Do the two discredited men, whose gray hair cannot even command respect, represent the good people of New York? Representative government?

In one of the States a governor is elected, and the governorship is calmly stolen by the legislature. New York elects a mayor. Who was elected? Nobody knows. Every attempt to obtain an honest recount is baffled by legal cunning. Government by the people?

Our Western lands, the greatest heritage a nation ever had, are being squandered. More than three million acres of the best land have been practically given away in the last few years. The small farmer is being squeezed out, and thousands of them are going to Canada.  

The idea that we are so crowded that emigration is necessary is ridiculous. And still they are going. In the years 1903 and 1904 more than ninety thousand Americans made their home in Canada. Ere long they will go in numbers of a hundred thousand and more a year, while our Western lands are gobbled up by organized greed, by interests that resort to forgery, bribery, perjury, and every form of knavery. Government for the people?

Three life insurance companies, the New York, the Mutual, and the Equitable, have actual assets on hand of more than $1,245,000,000. This sum is sufficient to pay our national debt and leave hundreds of millions of dollars in the treasury. Our insurance laws are such that if a dozen men chose to agree, they could do as they pleased with this vast sum, the property of two million policy-holders. Government for the people?

Our railroads kill more people in one week than the German railroads kill in one year. For every railroad accident in France or in Germany somebody has to suffer, occasionally somebody is hanged. There are no tinder-box cars in these countries. Why can we not abolish them? In 1904 the American railroads killed 10,046 persons, and injured 84,155. These figures are official. Ten thousand killed in one year. The railroads of Great Britain and Ireland, transporting over a billion passengers, outside of the suburban service, to our 750,000,000, killed twenty-five persons in 1904 and injured 769. In 1905 our railroads killed 9,703 persons and injured 86,008 persons. In five years we allowed our railroads to kill 46,632 persons and to cripple 364,717. Think of it. Government for the people?

In the three months ending September 30, 1906, there were 19,850 casualties, an increase of 2,913 over the preceding three months. This includes accidents to passengers and employees only, not the accidents to trespassers and other outsiders. Among the latter, the mortality is greater than among all other classes combined. The State of New York recognizes that grade crossings are avoidable, and its legislature passed a law for their" gradual abolition. Under this wonderful piece of legislation grade crossings will be abolished in about eight hundred years. How many thousand men will in that time be killed by the murderous laxity or corruption of their fellow countrymen who allow the railroads to continue the killing sport? Trolley-car butcheries increase the fatalities.

Old boxes are allowed to run as boats and to invite passengers. In the Slocum disaster a thousand women and children were murdered, murdered by the laxity of their fellow citizens, who allow greedy corporations to transact business as they deem best. Not one guilty man was hanged. The captain was sent to the penitentiary, and everybody knows that he was not responsible for the rotten condition of the boat. Government for the people?

The German railroads carry nine hundred million passengers a year and cripple almost none of them. Besides this, there are no dividends on watered stock, no rebates, no grafting, no rate jugglings, no discriminations, no underbilling, no wrong classifications, no frauds on shippers, and no hesitation to pay damages for goods that are lost, injured, or delayed in transit.

The Germans are not afraid of economic and socialistic experiment. Besides owning the railroads, they are also in the insurance business. The insurance of the working people against accident, illness, and old age was an enormous economic experiment. In the year 1904 two and one-half million persons were insured against sickness, 18,376,000 against accident, and 13,756,000 against incapacity and old age. This insurance is for purely benevolent purposes. As there is no grafting, as no dividends on watered stock are to be paid, as there are no persons connected with the insurance company who can allot to themselves, their families, and other drones enormous salaries, surplus money is used to build sanatoriums for consumptive patients. Many patients are saved, that in America are allowed to die. What of it? That does not touch the sacred dividends. The German government operates the telegraph and telephone systems. It owns coal-mines and is a shipper of coal. By these means the Germans have prevented capital from becoming the hydrocephalic monster that it has become with us.

In the business world there is no greater power than that of making rates of interest and rates of freight. The men who wield this power control the trade and wealth of the country. In America this power is in the hands of a very small group of men, who own the country. Government for the people?

We have a system of taxation, and a wonderful system it is. It is easier on the rich and harder on the poor than that of any other country. Men who are known to be worth many millions are assessed on one hundred thousand dollars and many of them refuse to pay the tax on that sum. Every little estate, however, in the hands of trustees for the benefit of widows and orphans, being on record, is mulcted. Government for the people?

Contractors are allowed to put up buildings which reduce the streets to air-shafts. Houses are allowed to exist that are not fit to live in. According to the "Handbook on the Prevention of Tuberculosis," there are in Manhattan over two hundred thousand and in Brooklyn over one hundred and twenty-five thousand dark interior rooms, without a window of any kind, and with no means of light or ventilation. Through the city are thousands of tenements with air-shafts less than five by five. Rooms opening on these are technically dark, and as bad as the rooms with no opening at all. These rooms are closets, holes in the wall. Houses of that construction ought to be taken down without delay. With us vested interests are more important than health and life. What do we do to cure the tuberculosis that we breed? The Society for the Prevention of Tuberculosis says:

"How inadequate is the provision for the treatment of the twenty-two thousand consumptives who, it is estimated, are now in New York outside of New York City, may be gathered from the comparison of the number of beds in use on April 1, 1905, by State cases and city cases respectively. Two thousand and forty out of the thirty thousand consumptives in New York City were being cared for in special hospitals, homes, or sanatoriums; i.e. there was one occupied bed for every fourteen cases. Two hundred and nineteen out of the twenty-two thousand State cases were being similarly cared for. Since of this total of 219 beds in use, 72 were for local use only in Buffalo, Rochester, and Westchester County, for the estimated 18,250 State cases outside of these three places, there were but 147 beds occupied, or one bed for every 124 cases. How far attributable to lack of proper provisions for care and segregation were these 18,250 cases and the 4,636 deaths which occurred in 1903 in those parts of this State for which these 147 beds were available?"

According to the "Handbook on the Prevention of Tuberculosis:" "We have in this country sanatoriums for the well-to-do, sanatoriums for those in moderate circumstances, but no sanitoriums for that large class of consumptives who are unable to pay anything. What is needed is just what has already been done in Germany with wonderful success. Each city of any size should establish its own sanatorium and look after its own consumptive poor. It has been estimated that the amount of money that could be saved in New York, allowing a six months' residence in the sanatorium and the return of the patient to his occupation as wage-earner, as would occur in the majority of cases, would be a saving of over a million dollars per year. In Germany all classes, when they become consumptive, the prince or the pauper, enter one of the innumerable institutions."

From the "Handbook on the Prevention of Tuberculosis" we learn: "I know of one family, with five children, where every cent was scraped and saved from the push-cart earnings in the Ghetto to send the father to Germany to a sanatorium there. I am told this happens with hundreds in our Ghetto.

"There is a class of sanatoria in Europe, and especially in France, which have given the most wonderful results. I refer to what are known as the sea-coast sanatoriums for scrofulous and tuberculous children. The statistics in Germany show that fifty per cent, of these little ones leave these institutions perfectly cured. We have none in this country, and we say it to our shame. ... On the coast of Germany, Holland, France, and Italy thousands of lives have been saved. Over here our plague-stricken children, if cared for at all, are kept in city hospitals at an expense far greater, with suffering far worse.

"There is a scarcity of hospitals and sanatorium facilities for thousands of poor consumptives who could be cured, if only taken care of in time. Sanatoriums for consumptive adults, as well as seaside sanatoriums for scrofulous and tuberculous children, are a crying and urgent need for the majority of our large American cities. The more consumptives we cure, the more breadwinners we create, and the fewer people will become burdens to the communities. As the conditions now are, in most of our cities and towns, the majority of our consumptives are doomed to a certain and lingering death; and if they are careless and ignorant of the necessary precautions, they will infect some of their own kin and neighbours."

Germany takes good care of her consumptives, and cures eighty per cent, of them. Sanatorium treatment in Germany is possible not only for the rich. We, however, are poor, and have a government for the people. Government for the people! We have the phrase, others seem to have more of the substance.

In the Cuban War Spanish guns killed a number of our men, embalmed meat killed a much greater number; and not one of the hyenas who furnished the poisoned food was hanged. Mr. Neill and Mr. Reynolds inspected the Chicago packing-houses and found the conditions revolting. How many men, women, and children have been killed in the course of years by being fed on meat from the "jungle" will never be revealed. No one was branded a criminal for feeding jungle beef to his fellow countrymen, no one was hanged. Erasmus, speaking of adulterated food, says: "We hang men who steal our money. These creatures really steal our money and our lives in addition, and yet go free."

Unhealthy work of women and children does profound harm to the nation. The evils of women's work are increasing. Five million women in the United States are wage-earners. England, Germany, Holland, and Austria have found protective measures a necessity for the welfare of women and children. They declare that women and children should not work in the factories at night. In New York such protective measures are declared unconstitutional. We have child labour. It is the national crime. It murders the soul of the children, if not the body. In thousands of factories and mills are children ground into dividends. One million seven hundred and fifty thousand children under fifteen years of age are in the United States engaged in gainful occupations. Twenty thousand children under twelve years of age are at work in the Southern States. Pennsylvania has forty thousand under sixteen, the greater number of them under twelve. Children eight and nine years of age are at work in the coal-mines. We destroy child life in coal-mines, in glass factories, in candy factories, in cigar factories, in sweat-shops, and in box factories. What of it? Nothing is cheaper in America than human flesh.

Is there any other civilized nation that grinds children into cash? Is there a nation of barbarians that robs children of their childhood as we do? Government for the people?

In Europe the best of all possible forms of government works about as well as in America. It seems that the best of races are not yet ripe for that best of all possible forms of government. No race ought to receive the franchise that has not somewhere, at some time, shown some capacity for the ballot.

That the enfranchisement of the negroes was an injustice, an injury inflicted on the white man, has been both asserted and denied. The white population of the South knows the truth. The sudden liberation and enfranchisement of the negro was an even greater injustice and injury inflicted on the black man. There are men, they usually pose as philanthropists, who hold that the negro's soul is the same as the white man's soul; that colour is skin deep only. The Scandinavian is a bleeched negro, and the negro a tanned Scandinavian, — an assertion implying the accusation that God committed a huge practical joke when he gave to souls essentially alike skins so various.

The truth is, that the souls of the white man, the yellow man, and the black man are as different as their bodies. Open your eyes, and recognize that this is a truism. There have been men who declared that the negro is the equal of the white man, but, as yet no one has been sufficiently demented to hold that the black man is superior to the' white men. The sudden liberation and enfranchisement of the negro demanded that he should accomplish overnight what it took the white man two thousand years to accomplish. It took the white man two thousand years to progress from slavery to free contract labour. We attempted to force the negro to cover the same distance overnight. Could the superfluity of philanthropy, which was content with nothing less than absolute liberation and enfranchisement, work otherwise than harm to the negro? And inconceivable harm it has wrought.

Before the war, the negro who assaulted a white woman would have been hanged by his fellow slaves. To-day the black brute is a local hero. Then the black man was at least a good working-tool; to-day he is as lazy as he is arrogant. If by working two days he can earn enough to live six, why should he work more than two days? The South complains of the negro's increasing laziness, his natural inclination to loll about, and of his incapacity. There is no reliance to be placed in the negro, and his untrustworthiness and unreliability are increasing every year. It is a mistake to believe that public schools and colleges will change the negro essentially. To believe that there are short cuts from barbarism to civilization is the height of folly. Neither the Tuskegee Industrial and Normal Institute nor Clark University nor seminaries nor Baptist colleges nor theological schools will in the long run prove to be such short-cuts. Christianity is no such short-cut. To the negroes, Christianity is largely a form of fetish worship. (v. Chapter XVI.) The name of the fetish has changed, and that is about all. This may be sufficient to transplant the worshipper to heaven, but it is not sufficient to civilize him. In South Africa the opinion is that the Christianized Kaffirs are worse than the others. Ninety-five per cent, of the black convicts are Christianized Kaffirs. There is no short cut from savagery to civilization. Hard work as slave, as serf, as bondman, and as free man has civilized the white man, and hard work alone will civilize the black man, if the capacity to become civilized is latent in him. The capacity to imitate is in itself not civilization. The ability of the negro to copy the white man's vices is without limit, but he rarely emulates the white man's virtues.

The best that the American negro has produced is very, very little indeed. He has produced nothing that is original or creative in any sense. The best is not more than a more or less successful copy of the white man's work. Who are the negroes whose names are considered worth mentioning? Booker T. Washington, George White, Daniel Williams (the surgeon), Rev. Alexander Walters, Reverend Douglas, Henry Tanner, Paul L. Dunbar, Professor Scarborough, Professor Du Bois, and George W. Williams, who wrote a history of the negroes.

The best of the negro aristocracy would pass unnoticed as mediocre, if their skin were white. They are considered as men of consequence because they are negroes. As far as the negroes are concerned, the democratic system has broken down completely. Forty years ago the right to sell his vote was given to the negro, and he has exercised it. Never has he anywhere used it to promote any measure for his improvement. Has the negro anywhere else shown capacity for self-government? Has he anywhere been able to legislate for his own welfare? Let us see.  

Three republics exist that have been founded by liberated slaves, Hayti, Santo Domingo, and Liberia. The first two have existed as independent States more than a hundred years. In Hayti seventy per cent, of the population is black, thirty per cent, mulatto and white. In Santo Domingo forty-five per cent, of the population is black, thirty-five per cent, mulatto, and twenty per cent, white. In both of them revolutions are more common than elections. Occasionally a mule is the cause of a revolution, more often it is a bloodhound. The loss of life in these internecine frays has been appalling. It is little wonder that some, at least, of the inhabitants of the two places, are anxious for some one to come to save them from themselves. The constitutions, the institutions of these two countries are shaped after our own. The constitutions contain all the political wisdom that our own contains. Not a trace of the African spirit exists in them. They abound with liberality phrases; the equality of man, the inalienable rights that the Creator endowed all men with, among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and all the other phrases that the French revolution brought forth live on the paper. Apparently these negroes are good statesmen, wise educators, honest politicians; in short, in everything but skin, Anglo-Saxons or Germans.

What are they in reality? They are as ignorant, as depraved, as brutal as the negroes of Central Africa. The men who had to deal with the African negroes do not speak of the negro race as a child race, for their brutality does not entitle them to that appellation which absent-minded philanthropists (so called) applied to them. The negro of Hayti and of Santo Domingo has one care only: to pour alcohol into himself, chew tobacco, rip bellies open from time to time, and keep on the good side of the medicine-man. When Santo Domingo was a colony, refinement, culture, and civilization had a home there. In course of the century, Santo Domingo, a region by nature one of the fairest and richest of the globe, has sunken from a state of comparative civilization to one of sheer savagery. And yet for the sake of liberality phrases, we do not draw the evident conclusion, that the negro of Santo Domingo belongs to a race, not only different from, but inferior to the white races.

It is a race without capacity for self-government, and therefore not entitled to self-government. Equal rights for equal men is justice, but equal rights for men that are not equal is tyranny, the tyranny of the inferior over the superior.

The negro of Hayti is, if possible, worse than the negro of Santo Domingo. His laziness, his mental inertia, his drunkenness, are extreme. They have an army there, as many generals as privates. The soldiers sell their guns to the highest bidder. A post-office service exists. The Europeans of Hayti prefer to use the Hamburg-American line to the post-office service. The merchant sends his letters to the steamers, in order to avoid the post-office. That a clerk sells the mail-bag for as much as he can get for it, is not uncommon. If a merchant has a letter for the interior, he generally has it taken there, rather than entrusted to the Hayti mail.

In South America and in Central America we are the friends, protectors, and disseminators of vice, rottenness, and depravity. In Hayti we are, in addition, the protectors, and therefore the cause, of cannibalism. European powers are stamping out cannibalism on the most out-of-the-way islands of the Southern Sea, we suffer it at our very doors. Officially, the Roman Catholic is the religion of the Haytians, but it is the religion of their epidermis only. For many years Catholic priests have endeavoured to make them real Christians. Their self-sacrifice and devotion have met with but indifferent success. The religion in the heart of the Haytians is the Voodoo cult. It is a serious matter to displease the papaloi and the mamaloi of Vandoux. The papaloi has given him orders to procure the "goat without horns" for the next feast. The papaloi is a powerful medicine-man and human flesh is a food for the daintiest palate. He will procure the "cabrit." He will kidnap somebody's child, possibly that of his own sister. The night of the festivity has come; the black crowd has assembled; a poison has been administered to the "goat sans comes," rendering him semiconscious. He is placed in the centre of the black circle. The mamaloi (priestess) strangles him, and the papaloi (priest) cuts his head off. The blood is caught, mixed with rum, and the beasts gorge it until mad with drunkenness. Then the devils dance, and the most unnatural orgies commence.

This crazy religion is not confined to the riffraff. Toussaint, the "emperors" Dessalines, Christophe, Solon, and the presidents Salomon and Salnare were papalois. Two presidents were opposed to this religion for beasts, Goffrard and Brissord. They had a number of papalois and mamalois tried and executed. Since then nothing has been done. Such is the depravity which we suffer, and to which we therefore are accomplices. And that at our very doors.

Liberia is the third free negro republic. American philanthropists bought the territory in Africa, with the intention of transplanting freed negroes to Liberia. In 1820 a number of ships brought the first families of American negroes to Liberia, most of them from Pennsylvania and Maryland. By the year 1838 four thousand families of American negroes had been transplanted to Liberia. More followed. As long as white agents ruled the republic, there was some civilization there. The negroes, however, became unruly, expense and troubles increased, and the Americans withdrew. In 1847 Liberia was declared independent. A constitution after the pattern of our own was given it, and Liberia was left to herself. The immigrant negroes ceased to work, did nothing to civilize the natives, added the vices of the white man to the vices of the black man, and, in a short time, civilization gave way to utter savagery.

Nowhere has the negro shown the slightest ability for self-government. He has no capacity for the ballot. Why should he have the right to the ballot? His enfranchisement in America has not educated him in citizenship. It has not taught him that rights exist for those only that respect duty.

What is to be done with our negroes? If conditions that now exist continue, nothing need be done. The problem will solve itself. The immigration of Southern mongrels is injecting more and more negro blood into our veins. The policy of expansion will bring Cuba, the West Indies, probably Mexico, into the Union, and more blood of coloured races will be surreptitiously injected into our veins by the white-Indian-negro mongrels. The Monroe Doctrine will help to inject another quantity.

As soon as the amount of blood of coloured races in our veins will be equal to the amount that flowed in the veins of the Spaniards or Portuguese when they came to America, the negro problem will have ceased to exist. There will no longer be any talk of separation of the races, of social inequality, or of disfranchisement. The prospect of a negro son-in-law will seem not at all hideous to a sub-white-melanoid Southern Senator, with muddy skin, broad face, protruding cheeks, big ears, thick nose, and thick lips. The sub-white American girl, no longer a beauty, will be well content with a tenth, eighth, seventh, quarter, half, wholly red, black-yellow-white, or anything at all mixtum-compositum spouse. A worthless herd will infest the land, but "Three cheers for the red, white, and blue."  
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 32961
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Race or Mongrel, by Alfred P. Schultz

Postby admin » Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:35 am

CHAPTER XXIX: CONCLUSION

The statement has been made that a nation that has no immigration will soon deteriorate through inbreeding. This danger does not exist for any race consisting of more than ten million individuals. It is probably a very remote danger for races having less than ten million members. Promiscuous crossing destroyed many of the noblest races. The better the race, the greater the danger of degeneration through crossing. Promiscuous crossing destroyed the Hamitic and most of the Semitic races. Promiscuous crossing destroyed the Hindoos, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, and the Lombards.

No historic race was ever destroyed by inbreeding. More than that, no historic race that practised inbreeding was ever destroyed by any cause. The Jews suffered persecution, torture, martyrdom, and persisted. The Gipsies, a race that has nothing in its favour, were saved by inbreeding alone. The English are to-day the strongest of European races. They crossed with Danes, Scandinavians, and Normans; but the immigration of these people never amounted to an inundation; and, moreover, these immigrants were of pure race and closely related to the English race. The absorption of Celts was slow. Since the Norman invasion, Germans from Germany, Holland, and Flanders, and Huguenots came to England. The number of these immigrants was never large. They were absorbed, not mongrelized. The centuries of inbreeding following the crossing made the English the strongest of the European races.

In Germany the gospel of race purity is preached and taught, and the Germans act according to its sacred laws. There are more than eighty million Germans in the German lands of Europe, — eighty million Germans, not eighty million inhabitants. This is probably the most powerful single community in existence. If they continue to remain sane, if they do not allow themselves to commence suffering from paranoia, if they do not commence emulating the nation that is anxious to assimilate Porto Ricans, Cubans, Mexicans, and others, to control two continents, the moon, and several of the fixed stars, they will soon be the greatest of races. There is no reason why a race that remains true* to itself should not exist to the end of time.

Let us create a race in America that is not very much inferior to these two races. It can still be done, but not without the employment of rigorous means. Immigration must cease, for we cannot stand another drop of melanoid blood. There must be no further expansion; the blood injected by West Indian, Mexican, and South American mongrels is more vitiated and vicious than that of the Southern Europeans. The corollary follows that the Monroe Doctrine must be discarded. A race inhabiting a small territory is incomparably more worthy than a vast mongrel herd infesting several continents. "For what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world and lose his soul?"

That environment is of little importance to the development of a race is clearly demonstrated by the fact that when Hellenes lived in Greece, Greece was great. Since their mongrelization, Greece has produced nothing. As long as Romans existed, Rome was great; when they were mongrelized, Rome was dead. The Lombards came to Italy, and they produced the Renaissance. Their mongrelization left only an Italy. The Phoenicians produced a great civilization; it perished with them.

The same phenomenon can be observed the world over. Where a great race is, civilization flourishes; where the great race is not, the best possible environment cannot produce it.

A world language is not desirable. It is an active factor in bastardizing the people who speak it. There was a time when Greek was the world language; there was a time when Latin was the world language. Greek was a great tongue as long as it was spoken by Greeks only; but, when it was spoken the world over, it had ceased to be a great language. The same is true of the Latin tongue. An everybody's tongue is a no man's tongue. It is a language spoken by mongrels. And the mongrel is everywhere worthless.

If uniformity of the world is desirable, if eternal peace is as great a blessing as the peace fiends will have it, if bastardization of all races is a consummation devoutly to be wished, then let us continue to expand, and spread the English language all over the planet. Let us encourage immigration, and in a hundred years, another Horace, in another "cloaca gentium," will have reason to repeat:

"Aetas parentum, pejor avis, tulit
Nos nequiores mox daturos
Progeniem vitiosiorem."

"Our parents, worse than our grandparents, have borne us more degraded, who will bring forth a still more vicious progeny."


THE END.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 32961
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Ancien Regime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests