German Immigrants: Not WHITE, Not WANTED

Summary of the video’s main points

• Claims about early anti-German sentiment (Benjamin Franklin)

  • The video argues that prominent founders expressed concerns about German immigration to Pennsylvania, especially in the mid-1700s.
  • It describes Pennsylvania (1753) as being in the middle of a major German-speaking migration wave (about 100,000 German-speaking immigrants arriving in colonial America during roughly 1710–1775).
  • It explains that German communities in Pennsylvania built German-language institutions—including churches, newspapers, courts, businesses, and signage—and highlights an example of a German Bible being printed on Pennsylvania soil.
  • Ben Franklin’s private letter (May 1753) to Peter Collinson is presented as evidence of Franklin’s fears, emphasizing Franklin’s description of German immigrants as “stupid,” arriving “in droves,” and not learning English or adopting English culture.
  • Franklin’s public essay (Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, published two years later) is presented as an expanded version of the argument for wider circulation. The video emphasizes Franklin’s racialized framing—claiming Germans were “too dark” to be considered “white”—and warning that America should remain “lovely white” rather than “increase” non-white peoples.

• Broader pattern among “founders”: immigration and “whiteness” as gatekeeping

  • The video argues that later founders echoed or built on similar anxieties:
    • Alexander Hamilton (1802) is cited for a newspaper argument opposing easier naturalization for immigrants, warning that an “influx of foreigners” could “change and corrupt the national spirit.”
    • Thomas Jefferson (1780s) is cited from Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 8, arguing that immigrants would preserve their languages and political principles—and that it would be better to disperse them so they would not remain culturally distinct.

• Naturalization law and the “white” requirement

  • The video connects founder-era concerns to the early U.S. naturalization framework:
    • It describes the 1790 naturalization law as allowing citizenship for “free white” persons who met residency requirements.
  • The video argues this produced a system where “American identity” (especially citizenship eligibility) was administratively controlled through racial categories on paper.

• German Americans during World War I: acceptance then backlash

  • The video claims German immigrants were treated as “white” for a long time under the Naturalization Act, including participation in mainstream civic life (press, politics, sports, brewing).
  • During World War I, it says German Americans were suddenly targeted:
    • German-language instruction was banned in many states.
    • German-language media faced suppression or wartime supervision.
    • German names and foods were anglicized (e.g., “Liberty Cabbage,” “Liberty Steak”).
  • It highlights a violent incident: Robert Prager, a German-born coal miner lynched by a mob in 1918, with the trial resulting in acquittal.

• The conclusion: the “ban Germans” plan failed, but racial categories adapted

  • The video argues that even if founders opposed German immigration and doubted Germans could assimilate, German descendants became one of the largest ancestry groups in the U.S. (stated around 50 million).
  • It claims no single constitutional overhaul was required; instead, the “white” category expanded over time as immigration pressures increased and the country needed a shifting threshold for inclusion.
  • It generalizes the pattern to other immigrant groups (Irish, Italians, Jews, Armenians), arguing that categories defining who counts as “American” keep shifting historically.

Overall thesis

• The video frames “American identity” as not fixed—but rather reclassified over time by governments and social institutions.
• It argues that founder-era writings treated “white” status as a paper category, and that later events (including wartime backlash and eventual broader inclusion) show how that category could be widened without formal constitutional change.

Presenters / contributors

• Danielle Romero (host/presenter)