Chapter 5:

Race and Reason

The book riveted me. I read it on the streetcar, and then on the connecting bus all the way home, almost missing my stop. When I walked home from the bus stop, I would pause and read a couple of paragraphs and then close the book and walk while I thought about the concept. That evening, after wolfing down my supper, I bounded upstairs to my bedroom where I retrieved my book from its paper bag and read until I finished it.

The book did not convert me, but it made me think critically for the first time about the race issue, and it made me question the egalitarian arguments that I had uncritically accepted. I was not ready to give up my egalitarian beliefs, but Race and Reason made me realize another legitimate and scientific point of view existed.

I asked myself, What if the things he writes are true? What if the distinctions, quality and composition of races are the primary factors in the vitality of civilizations?

Putnam prophesied that massive racial integration of American public schools would lead to increasing Black racism, resentment and frustration, reduced educational standards, increased violence in the schools, and a resulting implosion of the great cities of America. I worried that such a fate could befall our country. I wanted to find out the truth, no matter where it might lead.

One allegation by Putnam especially interested me. He said that most of America's Founding Fathers were convinced believers in racial differences and that even President Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, stated repeatedly that he believed that there were wide differences in the races that make necessary their separation. If Putnam's allegations were correct, then I would have to acknowledge that the media had deceived me on an important matter. My generation had been taught that racial equality was enshrined in the principles of our Founding Fathers and supposedly represented even by the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. . .

Most Americans can instantly identify these words. But do these words mean that Jefferson and the other patriots who put their names on that document believed that all men were truly created biologically equal; that the White and Black races had equal endowments from the Creator?

How could that be true, asked Putnam, when the same document refers to Indians as “merciless savages” who massacred innocents without regard to age or gender?

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Anyone who used such language today from the podium of the Republican or Democratic National Convention would be universally scorned.

How could they really believe in racial equality, when many of the signers themselves, including the author, Thomas Jefferson, owned Black slaves that were considered chattel property? What of their slaves' unalienable rights? Were our Founding Fathers blatant hypocrites, or did the declaration simply say that our rights as British subjects in the thirteen Colonies were the same as those of our British brothers back in England?

After I read and re-read the rest of Jefferson's utterances on the Negro question, it seemed certain to me that he was not referring to racial equality when he penned the Declaration of Independence. Other than the "created equal" line in the Declaration of Independence, the most common quote by any American Founding Father used to bolster the civil-rights movement was Jefferson's classic line that reads:

Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, than that these people [the Negroes] are to be free.

This declamation has been used in thousands of books, articles, plays, documentaries and movies — more than any other famous enunciation on the race issue. On the beautiful Jefferson Memorial in Washington, it is found chiseled as sacred writ on the huge interior panels of granite. The next sentence on the wall begins with the word education. In media articles the quotation ends with the words “are to be free.” Neither the articles nor the memorial’s architect give the public the honesty of an ellipsis, for the quotation is clearly an intentional deception that completely alters his original meaning.

The quotation itself is only a fragment of one of Jefferson's sentences written in his autobiography:

Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [Negroes] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be . . .pari passau filled up by free White laborers. If on the contrary it is left to force itself on, human Nature must shudder at the prospect held up. ⁱ

When I first read the complete text of the Jefferson statement, It stunned me. Not only did Jefferson not believe in racial equality, he stated clearly that Nature had made the Black and White races indelibly different that they couldn’t live in the same government, and that unless the Black race was returned to Africa, he “shuddered “ for America’s future. The egalitarian sources that wrote loftily of his belief in equality had brazenly deceived me.

Perhaps Jefferson was wrong in his opinion, I thought, but why have his words been twisted completely opposite to his original intent? I remembered my visit the rotunda of the Jefferson Memorial, when I had stared up in reverence at those words across from the magnificent statue of Jefferson himself. Now, I knew those words etched in granite were a lie.

The rest of those powerful words had simply gone down what the writer George Orwell called the "memory hole” in his classic book 1984? ⁱⁱ If the establishment would blatantly suppress and distort a historical fact as important as this, I wondered if there were other important deceptions about race. Putnam exposed many more.

Martin Luther King's 1964 Civil Rights March on Washington held its rally at the Lincoln Memorial. I knew that Lincoln was opposed to the institution of slavery, as was Jefferson, but what would Lincoln's opinion be on the march for racial integration and racial equality that assembled on the steps of his imposing memorial? Here are some of Lincoln's surprising sentiments on the issue:

Negro equality. Fudge! How long in the Government of a God great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue knaves to vend and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagoguism as this? (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler, Rutgers University Press, 1953, September 1859 (Vol. III p. 399)) ⁱⁱⁱ

In an address at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857:

A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together... Such separation, if ever affected at all, must be effected by colonization... The enterprise is a difficult one, but 'where there is a will there is a way;' and what colonization needs now is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time, favorable to, or at least not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. (Vol. II, pp. 408-9)^iv

In the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates in Charleston, Illinois, Lincoln said:

I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. (Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858 (Vol. III pp. 145-461))^v

In the shadow of the monument to the man who spoke the above words, assembled the 1964 Civil Rights march. The heavens must have laughed in irony. I searched out the text of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and found to my consternation that even his speech that accompanied it called for the deportation of the Blacks from America and their repatriation to Africa:

…and that the effort to colonize persons of African descent with their consent of upon this continent or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the governments existing there, will be continued. (From the emancipation proclamation issued from President Lincoln on Sept. 22, 1862) ^vi

The following are President Lincoln’s words at a repatriation ceremony in Washington, D.C.

I have urged the colonization of the negroes, and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan. There is no room for two distinct races of white men in America, much less for two distinct races of whites and blacks.

I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the negro into our social and political life as our equal...

Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the negro and give him our language, literature, religion, and system of government under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can never do here. We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable. (Vol. V, pp. 371-5)^vii

See our present condition -- The country engaged in war! -- our white men cutting one another’s throats . . . and then consider what we know to be the truth.

But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other… It is better for us both therefore to be separated. . .

You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. (address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes in Washington, DC on August 14, 1862 (Vol. V p. 371)^viii

To Lincoln the only workable long-term solution to the race problem in America is repatriation. He shared this opinion with the company of many other giants of American history, among them Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and even the writer of our national anthem, Francis Scott Key. All were active members of the American Colonization Society, founded in 1817 in Washington, D.C. Even though some Americans will have a hard time believing it, African colonization by freed slaves had actually begun before Lincoln's assassination. The African nation of Liberia was formed, its name taken from the Latin word meaning freedom. Its capitol, Monrovia, was named after President James Monroe, a strong advocate of Black repatriation. Until recent times Liberia’s government was ruled by the direct descendants of Black slaves from America.

Many Black leaders also supported the repatriation movement, including the much-venerated Black leader of the 1920s and 1930s, Marcus Garvey. A petition of 400,000 Blacks requesting repatriation was presented before the United States Congress in 1935; its powerful words bear repeating:

Given an opportunity in our ancestral Africa, the knowledge of farming and of simple farm machinery and implements, which we have acquired here would enable us to carve a frugal but decent livelihood out of the Virgin soil and favorable climate of Liberia. . .We are a liability now, and any cost of this project, no matter how great, would still, we sincerely believe, be a sound investment for the American people. ^ix

The "patriotic-American" argument for racial integration, which I had once accepted unquestionably, had collapsed, for if opposing racial integration made one un-American or unpatriotic, then unpatriotic is the man who wrote our Declaration of Independence, the president who ultimately freed the slaves and even the man who composed our national anthem. Our Founding Fathers were not only segregationists in the classic sense, they were White separatists who accurately predicted that the continued presence of Africans in America would lead to intractable social conflict. They believed the only equitable solution could be the repatriation of all Blacks from the United States, and they formed a society to accomplish that purpose. They even acquired land in Africa to become that new nation. In the end they were stymied in their quest, first by the economic power of slaveholders, who sought to preserve their fortunes, and later, at the close of the War for Southern Independence, by radical political forces who used the newly freed slaves as political fodder to maintain their control of the Congress.

Carleton Putnam’s sources on our Founding Fathers checked out right down to their punctuation marks. My mind opened to the possibility that he might be correct in more than his historiography. It alarmed me to think of the implications of race having a cardinal role in the creation and maintenance of culture and civilization. If true then replacement of the White race through immigration and race-mixing could conceivably destroy Western Civilization itself.

The egalitarians and their allies in media and government have clearly embarked upon a policy that is rapidly changing the racial composition of the United States. Even if their policy is terribly misguided, once it is fully accomplished, there is no going back. It is as if a scientist working on a cure for headaches recklessly tests his hypothetical cure on himself. If the formula turns out toxic instead of healing, he will never devise another.

The logic is clear, if Putnam is right that it is the inherent distinctions between the races that produce sharp differences in culture and values, then changing America from an overwhelmingly White nation to a multiracial, multicultural society will produce inevitable racism and conflict.

On the other hand, logic told me that if the egalitarians were right, harmony and progress will continue with the racial change.

Putnam’s arguments on racial integration were just as thoughtful as his historical revelations. I summarized his argument in my civics class term paper.

Putnam argues that race is a distinct reality in the world. That there have been thousands of studies of racial differences which have consistently revealed profound differences in IQ, and divergent behavioral patterns between Blacks and Whites. Numerous other studies have shown many identifiable distinctions between the physical brains and craniums of Blacks and Whites, and that these differences are the root causes of poor black educational performance and anti-social behavior. It is his belief that a civilization is the product of the particular racial group that created it and that demographic replacement of the founding race, through race-mixing, immigration, and differential birthrates, will diminish and ultimately destroy the vitality of the culture and civilization.

Putnam argues that the Supreme Court decision forcing integration of public education was a scientific and intellectual fraud perpetrated on the American public. He shows that the research of black social scientist, Dr. Kenneth Clark, was in clear contradiction to his subsequent testimony before the Supreme Court in Brown Vs. The Topeka Board of Education. The Brown decision turned on Clark's testimony that the self-esteem of Black children is seriously harmed by racial segregation.

Dr. Clark testified that when Black children were offered a choice between playing with White dolls or Black dolls, that they overwhelmingly chose the White ones--supposedly showing the psychic damage created by a segregated society. Dr. Clark concealed the fact that while it is true that in segregated schools Black children routinely prefer White dolls, his studies also showed that Black children in integrated schools were even more likely to choose White dolls.^x

In addition to harming the self-esteem of Black children, integration will actually harm the educational development of Black children. It creates a universalistic educational environment unresponsive to their specific needs and aptitudes. Putnam also argues that White children will suffer lower standards and the increased violence found in the Black community.

To paraphrase Lincoln, he says Blacks and Whites “will suffer on each side.”

I was not ready to accept Putnam’s premise of racial inequality, but in the face of such dramatic historical evidence, it seemed outrageous to me that the popular media in America promotes the idea that our Founding Fathers believed in racial integration and assimilation. Upon realizing that they had deceived me on this issue, no longer could I take any of the egalitarian pronouncements on face value. I became determined to investigate the entire issue thoroughly, trying to set aside my egalitarian prejudice.

Egalitarians argue that there are no differences in intelligence between Blacks and Whites and at the same time that environment has the greatest influence on both mental ability and character. They furthermore maintain that skin color is the only significant difference between the races. Some of them even go so far as to allege there is actually no such thing as race at all. I knew I had a lot of reading and thinking to do if I could ever gain some balanced understanding of the race issue.

Other famous words of Thomas Jefferson inscribed on his memorial read, " I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." As I continued to read and find many more lies and falsehoods about race, my own hostility grew, along with my determination to discover the truth about race, wherever it might lead.

Are the differences between Whites and Blacks, as I wanted so desperately to believe, only the color of our skins? Or, do deeper, more significant mental and personality differences exist that are determined by genes rather than environment. If profound inherent differences do exist, then all the premises of racial integration become threatened.

Before I could understand whether or not there are inherent differences of intelligence and character between the races, I had to know if psychological differences are the product of heredity or environment, especially in that most important characteristic: intelligence.