Louis Agassiz: His Life and Correspondence

by Louis Agassiz

August 10, 1863.

MY DEAR DOCTOR,

I am so deeply impressed with the dangers awaiting the progress of civilization, should the ideas now generally prevalent about amalgamation gain sufficient ascendancy to exert a practical influence upon the management of the affairs of the nation, that I beg leave to urge a few more considerations upon that point.

In the first place let me insist upon the fact that the population arising from the amalgamation of two races is always degenerate, that it loses the excellences of both primitive stocks to retain the vices or defects of both, and never to enjoy the physical vigor of either. In order clearly to appreciate the tendencies of amalgamation, it is indispensable to discriminate correctly between the differences distinguishing one race from another and those existing between different nationalities of the same race. For while the mixture of nationalities of the same race has always proved beneficial as far as we are taught by history, the mixture of races has produced a very different result. We need only look at the inhabitants of Central America, where the white, the negro, and the Indian races are more or less blended, to see the baneful effects of such an amalgamation. The condition of the Indians on the borders of civilization in the United States and in Canada, in their contact with the Anglo-Saxons as well as with the French, testifies equally to the pernicious influence of amalgamation of races. The experience of the Old World points in the same direction at the Cape of Good Hope, in Australia; everywhere, in fact, history speaks as loudly in favor of the mixture of clearly related nations as she does in condemnation of the amalgamation of remote races. We need only think of the origin of the English nation, of that of the United States, etc. The question of breeding in-and-in, that of marriage among close relations, is again quite distinct. In fact, there is hardly a more complicated subject in physiology, or one requiring nicer discriminations, than that of the multiplication of man, and yet it is constantly acted upon as if it needed no special knowledge. I beseech you, therefore, while you are in a position to exert a leading influence in the councils of the nation upon this most important subject to allow no preconceived view, no favorite schemes, no immediate object, to bias your judgment and mislead you. I do not pretend to be in possession of absolute truth. I only urge upon you the consideration of unquestionable facts before you form a final opinion and decide upon a fixed policy. Conceive for a moment the difference it would make in future ages for the prospects of republican institutions, and our civilization generally, if instead of the manly population descended from cognate nations the United States should be inhabited by the effeminate progeny of mixed races, half Indian, half negro, sprinkled with white blood. Can you devise a scheme to rescue the Spaniards of Mexico from their degradation? Beware, then, of any policy which may bring our own race to their level.

These considerations lead me naturally to the inquiry into the peculiarities of the two races, in order to find out what may be most beneficial for each. I rejoice in the prospect of universal emancipation, not only from a philanthropic point of view, but also because hereafter the physiologist and ethnographer may discuss the question of the races and advocate a discriminating policy regarding them, without seeming to support legal inequality. There is no more one-sided doctrine concerning human nature than the idea that all men are equal, in the sense of being equally capable of fostering human progress and advancing civilization, especially in the various spheres of intellectual and moral activity. If this be so, then it is one of our primary obligations to remove every obstacle that may retard the highest development, while it is equally our duty to promote the humblest aspirations that may contribute to raise the lowest individual to a better condition in life.

The question is, then, what kind of common treatment is likely to be the best for all men, and what do the different races, taken singly, require for themselves? That legal equality should be the common boon of humanity can hardly be matter for doubt nowadays, but it does not follow that social equality is a necessary complement of legal equality. I say purposely legal equality, and not political equality, because political equality involves an equal right to every public station in life, and I trust we shall be wise enough not to complicate at once our whole system with new conflicting interests, before we have ascertained what may be the practical working of universal freedom and legal equality for two races, so different as the whites and negroes, living under one government. We ought to remember that what we know of the negro, from the experience we have had of the colored population of the North, affords but a very inadequate standard by which to judge of the capabilities of the pure blacks as they exist in the South. We ought, further, to remember that the black population is likely at all times to outnumber the white in the Southern States. We should therefore beware how we give to the blacks rights, by virtue of which they may endanger the progress of the whites before their temper has been tested by a prolonged experience. Social equality I deem at all times impracticable,—a natural impossibility, from the very character of the negro race. Let us consider for a moment the natural endowments of the negro race as they are manifested in history on their native continent, as far as we can trace them back, and compare the result with what we know of our own destinies, in order to ascertain, within the limits of probability, whether social equality with the negro is really an impossibility.

We know of the existence of the negro race, with all its physical peculiarities, from the Egyptian monuments, several thousand years before the Christian era. Upon these monuments the negroes are so represented as to show that in natural propensities and mental abilities they were pretty much what we find them at the present day,—indolent, playful, sensual, imitative, subservient, good-natured, versatile, unsteady in their purpose, devoted and affectionate. From this picture I exclude the character of the half-breeds, who have, more or less, the character of their white parents. Originally found in Africa, the negroes seem at all times to have presented the same characteristics wherever they have been brought into contact with the white race; as in Upper Egypt, along the borders of the Carthaginian and Roman settlements in Africa, in Senegal in juxtaposition with the French, in Congo in juxtaposition with the Portuguese, about the Cape and on the eastern coast of Africa in juxtaposition with the Dutch and the English. While Egypt and Carthage grew into powerful empires and attained a high degree of civilization; while in Babylon, Syria, and Greece were developed the highest culture of antiquity, the negro race groped in barbarism and NEVER ORIGINATED A REGULAR ORGANIZATION AMONG THEMSELVES. This is important to keep in mind, and to urge upon the attention of those who ascribe the condition of the modern negro wholly to the influence of slavery. I do not mean to say that slavery is a necessary condition for the organization of the negro race. Far from it. They are entitled to their freedom, to the regulation of their own destiny, to the enjoyment of their life, of their earnings, of their family circle. But with all this nowhere do they appear to have been capable of rising, by themselves, to the level of the civilized communities of the whites, and therefore I hold that they are incapable of living on a footing of social equality with the whites in one and the same community without becoming an element of social disorder.* (* I fear the expression "social equality" may be misunderstood in this connection. It means here only the relations which would arise from the mixture of the two races, and thus affect the organization of society as a whole. It does not refer to any superficial or local social rules, such as sharing on common ground public conveyances, public accommodations, and the like.—ED.)

I am not prepared to state what political privileges they are fit to enjoy now; though I have no hesitation in saying that they should be equal to other men before the law. The right of owning property, of bearing witness, of entering into contracts, of buying and selling, of choosing their own domicile, would give them ample opportunity of showing in a comparatively short time what political rights might properly and safely be granted to them in successive installments. No man has a right to what he is unfit to use. Our own best rights have been acquired successively. I cannot, therefore, think it just or safe to grant at once to the negro all the privileges which we ourselves have acquired by long struggles. History teaches us what terrible reactions have followed too extensive and too rapid changes. Let us beware of granting too much to the negro race in the beginning, lest it become necessary hereafter to deprive them of some of the privileges which they may use to their own and our detriment. All this I urge with reference to the pure blacks of the South. As to the half-breeds, especially in the Northern States, I have already stated it to be my opinion that their very existence is likely to be only transient, and that all legislation with reference to them should be regulated with this view, and so ordained as to accelerate their disappearance from the Northern States.

Let me now sum up my answer to some of your direct questions.

1st. Is it probable that the African race will be a persistent race in this country, or will it be absorbed, diluted, and finally effaced by the white race?