The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The United States was founded on white nationalist principles

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,592 times Debate No: 104789
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (26)
Votes (0)




I will argue that the United States was founded on white nationalism and not "diversity." The latter is a lie that has been spread by Communists after the Immigration Act of 1965 went into effect.

First off let's define what white nationalism is, since many of you leftists have a hard time comprehending its actual meaning.

White nationalism is simply the notion that whites should be the vast majority in the countries founded by them. Now, you can argue that the US was stolen by Whites, but that's for another debate. I will consider the US as the nation existing after the colonists gained their independence from the British.


Thank you for the debate.

I'll start off with a brief argument, because you haven't started off with an argument and I'm not sure what your grounds for your argument are. The founding fathers were highly divided, and it's hard to pinpoint some principles that they held. But we do know that there would have been pro and con arguments. We know, from Liberia, that some Americans later believed that whites and blacks couldn't coexist. But Liberia was never that popular. Clearly we still have a lot of African Americans, so many disagreed with this. As for the founding fathers, we know that those who were pro-slavery would have disagreed (there was a huge spat during the writing of the constitution over slavery, and the Southern states/plantation states were clearly for allowing more blacks into the country, something a white nationalist would presumably disagree with. There were also Quakers, in states like Pennsylvania, who were wholeheartedly opposed to slavery but also strongly for diversity (middle states like Pennsylvania, New York, and also Rhode Island (a New England state) were very diverse, and considered themselves such (Rhode Island was derisively called "Rogue Island"). That leaves New England states, and I am not aware of any clear opinions from them that it was imperative for a country to be majority-white. They often had disagreements with the natives (though not always), but the same could be said between the English and the Irish, so there's no evidence that it was a "white thing". Would some have agreed with your statement? Very possibly. But not the majority.

I leave you to defend your argument.
Debate Round No. 1


Con starts off by implying that the vast majority of Americans did not support white nationalism, especially in the South, since they lived with some black slaves. This is clearly an absurd opinion. I didn't know that racial supremacists (who treated blacks in an inferior way) would have loved the idea of coexisting with other races in a "tolerant" and "diverse" manner. White Americans imported blacks for slavery AND only slavery. That's the only reason. They didn't make this decision based on the wish to be multiracial. And no, most of America wasn't actually pretty diverse back then, as statistics show.

White/Black Population Percentage

1790: 80.7/19.3 (92 percent of blacks in slavery)
1800: 81.1/18.9 (89 percent of blacks in slavery)
1810: 81.0/19.0 (86 percent of blacks in slavery)
1820: 81.6/18.4 (87 percent of blacks in slavery)

Compare these white demographics to the modern 60 percent non-hispanic white. As you can see, most White Americans, especially Southerners, used blacks as slaves. Even those who did not agree with slavery rarely believed in multiracialism. You fail to provide evidence of them doing so. Just because there were some blacks living with whites, should it mean that diversity was supported by most White Americans? Con speaks about the founders being divided in their beliefs (especially on slavery). This is somewhat true, but one thing's for sure. Their intention was that America be a white nation. Let's have a look at some of the laws passed by them.

The early Naturalization Acts. They "limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character." They "thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks..."

Yes, you will say that edits were made to the acts, and they were eventually repealed after the Civil War (as wiki states). Blacks were indeed given citizenship/rights. However, this legislation did NOT conflict with the beliefs of racial separatism or white nationalism (Equal but Separate ruling, segregation).

Another thing's for certain. We need to have a look at the immigration acts throughout U.S. history.

A simple research tells you that the US massively favored European immigrants, not African/Arab/Asian/Mexican ones.

It set quotas on which groups/races were able to come in and which groups couldn't.

While the govt eventually limited some Italian and Jewish immigration at the end, it cannot be clearer that the laws gave European immigrants an advantage (especially during the early 1900s).

It wasn't until 1965 when the nation started to truly become a "nation of immigrants." Until then, it was a nation of European immigrants, mostly.
As you can see, America was intially very tough on race, and indeed the early founders supported white nationalism. The act of importing black slaves was not intended to "multi-racialize" the nation. Even when they got their rights, we still segregated them from whites. It couldn't have been more obvious that the US never legally supported "diversity" until the year of 1965.


"White nationalism is simply the notion that whites should be the vast majority in the countries founded by them." Nothing about "multiracialism". Slaves were part of a country's population. And also gave the south more votes. Look at Haiti before the revolution (before slave revolts were a major fear). Heck, look at any Caribbean country. You see a lot of black people. Guess who brought them there? Slave owners. So unless you consider importing slaves until you're the racial minority a "white nationalist" principle, you don't really have a leg to stand on. And yes, those slave owners were racists. But "tolerance" and "diversity" are nowhere in your definition of white nationalism, and I can't imagine alt right thinkers like Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor (self described white nationalists) liking the importation of large numbers of black slaves. But that's not even your definition, your definition was focused solely on population, and it would really hurt your argument to change your definition of white nationalism after my first argument attacked it.

You say I fail to provide evidence they believed in "multi-racialism" and not only is that not the definition of the argument, but I'm simply the con. You made the claim that America is founded on white nationalist principles, and you're the one supposed to cite sources in your favor. If you can find evidence then it's my job to refute. Otherwise, we are assuming you're right unless I can provide counter evidence.

The naturalization acts are based solely around citizenship, and thus things like the vote. Plenty of people lived in the US without being citizens. As a white nationalist, are you only concerned about the citizenship numbers? Because I don't know how many illegal immigrants want citizenship, but if white nationalists don't care about them unless they do...

But knowing of white nationalist arguments means I know you guys don't like immigrants that aren't white at all. And that has nothing to do with naturalization. I agree the founders were not champions of diversity, at least most weren't, but that wasn't the argument. The argument was about whether they believed the majority of the population should be white. And I'm saying there's no evidence that that was a specifically-held belief. Slave owners wanted more slaves. And they didn't want racial minorities to vote (by the way, there wasn't any "white nation" belief back then. Italians and the Irish were seen as racially inferior, so there wasn't even a sense of being "white" as much as there was a sense of being "French" or "English". And for Americans, that meant they saw themselves as very diverse. Many writers noted how ethnically mixed Americans were-- English, Scottish, German... There wasn't an overall racial identity, that wouldn't exist as we know it today until later.

Where we get to a point that actually fits the argument is when you talk about immigration, and it's true that outside of naturalization, American history has bias against other races in terms of immigration. But that wasn't at its founding, the periods of massive immigration like from China weren't until much later. Even if you include naturalization, the New England states, the ones most likely to favor majority white population in my view, tended to be Federalist, and Federalists restricted ALL naturalization because immigrants tended to be Democratic-Republicans. So again, not a solid love of "white" immigrants.

My conclusion is that, while diversity wasn't a major principle at the time, neither was consciously avoiding a large black population. I guess the only other race they would have been involved with were Natives, but the history of chasing them out of the US is very complicated and can't be simplified to "we don't like them because they're brown".
Debate Round No. 2


The simple fact that our Founding Fathers and early presidents passed legislation that would promote racial homogeneity and separation, instead of integration, makes them white nationalists. Most slave owners DID believe that the vast majority of the US should be white. Blacks were not even considered a legal part of society, so it is clear that slave owners perceived themselves as living in a nation built for whites. Being against multiracialism is a core belief shared by the vast majority of white nationalists. Most slave owners, if they were to see the US today, would think negatively of the racial integration that our country has experienced. Decades after slavery was banned, African immigration was severely restricted by the quota acts. This shows that early Americans, if anything, only imported blacks for the purpose of using them, and not actually creating an ethnically diverse society. Yes, the naturalization acts do show that the founders indeed held white nationalist beliefs. They basically stated that the US was to only take white immigrants, legally, as citizens. Thus whites were the only group considered to be part of America, according to them.

You state that many founders were suspicious of some white immigrants, and that's completely true. It doesn't actually disprove my claim. Take the case of Benjamin Franklin for example, who criticized German catholic immigration. Just imagine his reaction seeing his cities outnumbered by other, non-white immigrants whom he considered to be inferior.

Furthermore, you do realize that the vast majority of Southerners, who supported slavery itself and the importing of slaves (as you claim), actually sided with segregation after slavery was banned and wanted White societies to be separate from black ones? That makes them white nationalists.

Also, selecting which races are allowed to vote is a huge part of the ideals of white nationalism. Early American founders/leaders made it clear that they wanted whites to have the main say in how government works. Allowing other races to exercise their voting rights, and thus, pushing for their own interests was an idea that faced opposition from the very Southerners whom you claimed rejected white nationalism. Even Lincoln, who is seen by many as a hero for ending slavery and promoting voting rights for blacks, was actually a white nationalist who distrusted the idea of whites and blacks being "equal" and living together. He heavily opposed race mixing (like modern WN's) and thus clearly distrusted the idea of diversity.

Now regarding some immigration acts. You talked about how they negatively affected Europeans themselves. This is somewhat true. Yes, many Europeans were forbidden to enter, but this decision wasn't made on the fact that they were of white skin color. Other acts specifically discriminating against non-whites were clearly passed to maintain racial homogeneity and ethnic composition.

Some White Catholics , for example, were not banned because of their European heritage. Many White Americans, like Benjamin Franklin, also believed that they would not assimilate into US culture. This is why many Italians, Irish people, and Germans were excluded. (Source is found in my previous argument).


As a result, it is clear that the US was founded on white nationalism, racial separatism, and ethnic homogeneity. Laws reflect a nation's historic beliefs. The US originally supported laws that conflicted with those of today. There is a reason that Whites were the vast majority back then, and after the Immigration Act of 1965, are slowly becoming yet another minority.


"White nationalism is simply the notion that whites should be the vast majority in the countries founded by them." Again, that's the definition you gave of white nationalism at the beginning of the debate. I'm not going to let you change the goalpost after I defended my point. No, slaveowners back then wanted huge populations of slaves, and didn't much care for outnumbering blacks. Look at the Caribbean. Look at Haiti. It wasn't until the Haitian revolution that slave owners realized it was stupid to be outnumbered by your slaves. Slave owners pushed for greater imports of slaves for a few decades after the constitution until it was banned. I don't care if they were racist. That isn't what this debate is about. You defined white nationalism as being about population, and wanting to import a huge number of black slaves goes against that.

As for later acts, this argument is about the founding of America, which i took to mean the late colonial and early national part of our history. And like I said, Americans weren't even united under a white identity. That seems to be important to "white nationalism" to me... But then again you didn't define it that way. You defined it for "leftists" like me (btw I'm a libertarian republican/small government conservative) as about wanting whites to be the large majority in the country they lived in. I showed you that slave owners didn't want this, and thus by your own definition of white nationalism you're wrong, and they weren't white nationalists. Yes, they were segregationists. Yes, they wanted the vote to be in the hands of white property owners (not all white people -- again, no sense of white idenitity). But those don't impact population. Would a white nationalist be okay with illegal immigration if there was segregation and they couldn't vote? Was apartheid south Africa a white nationalist paradise, with a majority black population? I don't expect most white nationalists would consider it such.
Debate Round No. 3


If our founders and early Americans held racist beliefs against the inclusion of non-white individuals, then that automatically implies that they supported the idea of racial homogenity. When slaves were given their rights after slavery was abolished, it was clear that these slaveholders did not want to include free blacks as part of white American society, thus they distrusted the idea of diversity. Americans were mainly united under European identity, which is essentially the same as white identity. The early colonists, as I showed earlier, believed in a nation that was to mainly include Whites. A society of diverse races and cultures was never a part of the US, until the 1965 Immigration and Reform Act was passed.

Segregation in the US had an impact on demographics and population. Its main purpose was to separate free blacks from whites, and thus it upholded the idea of having areas where the vast majority would be composed of Europeans, not other races.

Even though many of those who believed in voting rights for blacks were WN's themselves (like Lincoln), it couldn't have been clearer than those who opposed them also did it for a purpose related to white nationalist ideology. They did not want minorities to have a say in how government works- and thus- allowing them to push for legislation that would change the ethnic population of the US.

It could be said that South Africa was a supporter of White Nationalist ideals, since its leaders distrusted the idea of diversity. They believd that whites should not be mixed with blacks, and thus backed the idea of having regions where whites would be the vast majority, despite being an ethnic minority. We clearly do not know what their main intentions were though. They might have thought about ridding the nation of its black population, but that would've been considered a criminal act, and then all nations would have turned against them as a result. They might have supported the main WN purpose, but it is unclear.

The US was clearly founded on a white nationalist purpose, and did, however, believe that the nation should mainly include Europeans in its societies. I will show further prove that the founders, and even individuals 50 years after the colonial era, backed white nationalism...

Remember when I said that blacks were imported only for the purpose of slavery, and nothing else? Many founders and early American leaders wanted to send free blacks back to Africa, specifically Liberia, to preserve the homogenity of the US. The organization that pushed for this cause was known as the "American Colonization Society." Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and James Madison were all part of it. If they really rejected white nationalism, then such a movement would have never been thought of in the first place.


The article that you posted talked about diverse reasons for Liberia, some of which involved a belief in the separation of raves, but others that involved a belief in freedom from slavery, which Liberia helped insure. You say that diverse culture wasn't part of America until 1965, yet admit that many European cultures were mixed into America's. You also talk about segregation, yet that didn't occur until after the abolition of slavery, almost a century after America's founding. You also talk about European identity, yet showed no proof of one. And Europeans are not synonymous with whites. Irish and Italians, and a lot of Eastern Europeans, were frowned upon. Germany, England, and France were much less discriminated against. Jews, also largely white, were also persecuted. No sense of white superiority yet existed, only a sense of black inferiority to groups such as English, French, and German. You've proved that Americans were racist toward blacks, yet haven't managed to distinguish how that behavior was different than how they treated the Irish. You've also talked about segregation, yet early slave owners were perfectly content to live on plantations full of black slaves.

No evidence was given involving the use of the vote to keep immigration down. The vote was also denied to landless men and women, and restrictions on the importation of slaves weren't passed until the early 19th century.

As for South Africa, you've really pushed your definition to its limit. Segregation isn't the same as "being the vast majority in countries founded by them". Whites were most certainly not the vast majority-- they were the vast minority-- and you seem to be denying your own definition by acknowledging them as potential white nationalists.

I'm not saying there weren't racists among the founding fathers. There were plenty of them. But they didn't adhere to your defined brand of "white nationalism". They weren't opposed to black immigration-- they brought in slaves and increased the minority population-- and a white identity wasn't distinct until soon before the civil war, long after the founding of the country. Diverse European population, including many that were racially discriminated against, going against your concept of a European identity, varied the culture and go against your denial of a multicultural America. By your own definition of white nationalism, made distinct from simple racism by you at the start of the debate, is not met by your arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 2 years ago
The Japanese, South Koreans and Israelis all want an ethnostate, and there isnt near as much opposition to them coming from the left as there is toward white nationalism. Although they do hate the Japanese and Israelis as well-

Either way, Machevelli said that if you want to maintain a Republic, you cannot have all these different people with different cultures coming in. The left can try to claim that all cultures are equal and interchangeable all they want, but that's just false.

This has more to do with culture and religion than race, however-
Posted by Nationalsocialist1488 2 years ago
@Owlblocks, people who reject a diverseand ethnic society are almost always race nationalists. They want one main ethnic group, or race to stay as the majority in the nation. That is the case of the US until the immigration act of 1965 went into effect.
Posted by Owlblocks 2 years ago
I personally feel your main failure was your definition of white nationalism. I don't think I would have accepted if your definition was "being opposed to racial diversity" because many did feel that way at the time. But you defined it very explicitly, and while I considered accepting a revised definition I decided that I didn't feel I could argue a debate with a changing definition. I blatantly disagree with you about your politics, but I'll agree that many at the time agreed with you (albeit not your narrow definition). I just don't consider that evidence in support of white nationalism.
Posted by Nationalsocialist1488 2 years ago
I still can't understand how slave owners would be supportive of a society compromised of diverse races... I made it clear that the US was founded on European immigration.. We did NOT treat the Irish like we treated the Blacks and other races... The fouders, especially the ones who disagreed with slavery, were NOT supportive of black immigration... Slave owners, who would go on to fight diversity through segregation, prove at the end that they would hate the society we live in today.
Posted by Nationalsocialist1488 2 years ago
How sad you think that the US was founded on ethnic diversity, given the basic facts and evidence that point the other way...
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
How sad you think that way...................................................
Posted by Nationalsocialist1488 2 years ago
John Jay (Federalist Papers-

"Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs..."

Clearly a white nationalist belief. He admires racial and cultural homogeneity. This is a very anti-diversity made by him.

I will include another famous statement about what most early Congressmen wanted in the US. This proves that white nationalism remained rooted in American thinking.

"We want our own Republic and Union with a homogenous people, men of the same general race, blood, education and habits, forming a consolidated nation..." (Daniel D. Barnard, a Whig congressman from New York- The American Review, 1848)

Here is what a famous Boston journalist noted of the US.

We are comparatively free from all admixture with the inferior races of Asia and Africa, and also with that of the aborigines of the country."... our population combines the best qualities of the English, the French, the Germans, and the Irish, rapidly amalgamating into one homogenous people, with an original national character, superior perhaps, to any which the world has hitherto seen." (Brownson's Quarterly Review, 1865)

This proves that the US was to be for Europeans and only Europeans.

Let me further prove that even in the mid 20th century, most siginificant presidents still believed in white nationalist ideals.

The famous Harry Truman stated:

"I am strongly of the opinion that negros ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America.'

Truman wasn't a that strict on race by the way, but even he believed in the main message of white nationalism.
Posted by Nationalsocialist1488 2 years ago
, with most of the whites, insuperable; and are admitted by all of them to be very powerful. If the blacks, strongly marked as they are by physical and lasting peculiarities, be retained amid the whites, under the degrading privation of equal rights, political or social, they must be always dissatisfied with their condition, as a change only from one to another species of oppression; always secretly confederated against the ruling and privileged class; and always uncontrolled by some of the most cogent motives to moral and respectable conduct. The character of the free blacks, even where their legal condition is least affected by their colour, seems to put these truths beyond question. It is material, also, that the removal of the blacks be to a distance precluding the jealousies and hostilities to be apprehended from a neighbouring people, stimulated by the contempt known to be entertained for their peculiar features; to say nothing of their vindictive recollections, or the predatory propensities which their state of society might foster. Nor is it fair, in estimating the danger of collision with the whites, to charge it wholly on the side of the blacks. There would be reciprocal antipathies doubling the danger.
The colonizing plan on foot has, as far as it extends, a due regard to these requisites; with the additional object of bestowing new blessings, civil and religious, on the quarter of the Globe most in need of them. The Society proposes to transport to the African coast all free and freed blacks who may be willing to remove thither; to provide by fair means, and, it is understood, with a prospect of success, a suitable territory for their reception; and to initiate them into such an establishment as may gradually and indefinitely expand itself.

Clearly a WN viewpoint. He basically believed that freed blacks should move back to Africa and distrusted integrating the two races together.
Posted by Nationalsocialist1488 2 years ago
would be a NO. Early Americans believed in white nationalism, but for different reasons. Racial supremacists did not want other "inferior" races to be a part of the US, legally. Abolitionists thought that the idea of diversity would have a negative impact on the function of societies and end in chaos. Etc....

There is no goddamn proof that a significant amount of white Americans, even 100 years after the colonial era, believed in multiracialism, instead of white nationalism. I still don't know how you're not getting this.
Here are even more quotes of abolitionists and pro-slavery founders, both of which admired the idea of white nationalism.

James Madison

It only remains then that some proper external receptacle be provided for the slaves who obtain their liberty. The interior wilderness of America, and the Coast of Africa seem to present the most obvious alternative. The former is liable to great if not invincible objections. If the settlement were attempted at a considerable distance from the White frontier, it would be destroyed by the Savages who have a peculiar antipathy to the blacks: If the attempt were made in the neighbourhood of the White Settlements, peace would not long be expected to remain between Societies, distinguished by such characteristic marks, and retaining the feelings inspired by their former relation of oppressors & oppressed. The result then is that an experiment for providing such an external establishment for the blacks as might induce the humanity of Masters, and by degrees both the humanity & policy of the Governments, to forward the abolition of slavery in America, ought to be pursued on the Coast of Africa or in some other foreign situation.
To be consistent with existing and probably unalterable prejudices in the United States, the freed blacks ought to be permanently removed beyond the region occupied by, or allotted to, a white population. The objections to a thorough incorporation of the two people are
Posted by Nationalsocialist1488 2 years ago
Your thinking absolutely astonishes me.

The first quote made by Jefferson is clearly in line with what the WN Alt right believes. He's basically saying that racially diverse societies will fail, and violence/division will result from them. This is actually the main message of white nationalism, and the main reason why we believe in the ideology. He wasn't only saying that blacks were inferior to whites. He was explaining the reasons why he took a stance against integrating the races together in his state. Remember, these were the beliefs he had at the society level. I would doubt that he would've been supportive of a non-homogeneous nation at large. So yes, he was clearly FOR white nationalism. I don't know why you're over-analyzing this...

Finally you agree on something. It was clear that Franklin thought that slavery would have an impact on white population.

As for the third one, I picked it to mainly illustrate that a lot of pro-slavery founders like Pinckney did not even view blacks as normal beings who could be citizens. So why would he be for racial diversity instead of white nationalism and homogeneity? My point is, both abolitionists and non-abolitionists believed in white nationalism, even though many abolitionists stated thought slavery would decrease the white population. There is no proof of him willing to accept the integration of races together. Also, I would've doubt that he would've actually brought an uncontrolled number of slaves into the nation.

You see, a racial supremacist never rejects the idea of a racially homogeneous nation. Most abolitionists, if anything, did not even consider black slaves as a legal part of the US. Only whites formed the nation, according to them, so the US was already a majorly white society to them.

Disregard political stances. Just ask yourself this simple question, "Would early white Americans be supportive of the modern, racially society we live in?" Their thinking clearly indicated that the answer
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.