44 Chapter 2
Spencer,consideredemancipationthe centrallogic” of a free society.Anddrawingfrom
Spencer,Schurzlikewiseconcludedthat the Confederation’s insistenceon “fightinga war
to defendgovernment-sanctionedinequalitywasantievolutionary:a moraldeadend.” In
the followingyears,Schurzwouldgo on to becomea U.S.SenatorfromMissouriand then
a U.S.Secretaryof the Interior.^150
Philosophicallyconsistentwithhis highregardfor Spenceris Schurz’s distastefor Karl
Marx,whomhe encounteredat a conferencein 1848,the sameyearthat Marxreleasedthe
infamousCommunistManifestohe coauthoredwithFriedrichEngels.Of Marx,Schurz
sighed,“NeverhaveI met a manof suchoffensive,insupportablearrogance.... Everyone
whodisagreedwithhimwastreatedwithscarcely-veiledcontempt.He answeredall
argumentswhichdispleasedhimwitha bitingscorn...or witha libelousquestioningof
theirmotives.I still rememberthe cutting,scornfultonewithwhichhe uttered—I might
say ‘spat’—the word‘bourgeois’; andhe denouncedas ‘bourgeois’—thatis to say an
unmistakableexampleof the lowestmoraland spiritualstagnation—everyonewhodared
to opposehis opinions.”^151
CarlSchurz’s oppositionto slavery,alongwiththe othercasestudiespresented,ex-
posethe flimsinessof anysupposedconnectionthatonemaytry to identifybetween
Spencerandpoliticalracism.WhencriticsallegethatSpencersomehowwhitewashed
racialconquest,theyportrayan abolitionistas an apologistfor humanbondage.Not
surprisingly,CarlSchurzgavea speechin Spencer’s honorat the 1882Delmonico’s ban-
quet,^152 whereJohnFiskewasin attendanceas well.^153 Insofaras one definesracismas
the attemptto “discriminateagainst,or exploitmembersof the ‘lowerraces,’” writes
RobertL. Carneiro,an anthropologistat the AmericanMuseumof NaturalHistory,“...
Spencerwasmostcertainlynot a racist.... Indeed,withregardto the treatmentof native
peoplesand oppressedminorities,Spencercouldeasilybe considereda liberal.”^154
WilliamGrahamSumnerwentfartherthanSpencerandSchurz.The Yalesociologist
preachedthatif the UnitedStateswereto incorporateothercountriesintoits Union
throughmilitaryaction,thenthoseothernations’ nativesbeingof nonwhiteracesshould
not bar themfrombeingtreatedwiththe samepoliticalrightsas thoseof the USA’s white
population.He promulgated,“Thereare plentyof peoplein the UnitedStatesto-daywho
regardnegroesas humanbeings,perhaps,but of a differentsort fromwhitemen,so that
the ideasand socialarrangementsof whitemencannotbe appliedto themwithpropriety.
Othersfeel the samewayaboutIndians.Thisattitudeof mind,wheneveryou meetwith
it, is whatcausestyrannyandcruelty.” He deducedthat“the doctrinethatall menare
equal... in its absoluteform,must,of course,applyto Kanakas,Malays,Tagals,and
Chinesejust as muchto Yankees,Germans,andIrish.” Fromthis idea,Sumnerdeduced
that it wouldbe unethicalfor the U.S.to applymilitaryforceto annexpartsof Asiaunder
its ruleunlessit recognizedtheseAsiansas havingthe samerightsas everywhite
American.^155 It is noteworthythat Sumnercouldwritesuchwordsin 1899,manydecades
precedingthe civilrightsera.
On this countI mustgivesomequalifiedcreditto RichardHofstadter.Thisis despite
his beingthe manwhois quitepossiblythe one mostculpablefor inspiringacademicians
to equatebothfree-marketevolutionismand governisteugenicism.Unlikemostwelfare-
stateadvocateswhofollowhis leadin milkingthe socialDarwinismepithet,Hofstadterat
leastconcedesa partialdistinctionbetweenfree-marketevolutionismandgovernisteu-
genics.He designatesthe former“Darwinianindividualism” andthe latter“Darwinian
collectivismof the nationalistor racistvariety.. .”^156 The Columbiahistorianallowedit to
slipa fewtimes—somewhatinconspicuously—thatwhenpeopleadvocatedgovernist
eugenics,theirconclusionswerebasedon governistcollectivistpremisesnot dissimilar
fromhis own.Somewhatcontradictinghimself,though,everysuchadmissionwasfol-
lowedby qualifyingremarksthatseverelydownplayedthe extentto whichgovernist