“This country was founded as a White, Christian nation by the founding fathers who were devout Christians.”
“How can you say that? The founding fathers mostly were Deists and Unitarians who did not even believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. They certainly did not harbor their suspicions of the dangers of government-sanctioned religion and promoted the separation of Church and State.
“You’re wrong. Even the Pledge of Allegiance, which I had to recite at the start of every school day, contains the words, “one nation, under God!”
“Yes, but that phrase was only added…..”
And so, the argument goes. And although it is easy to dispute the specific views of the first speaker, is there any truth to the beliefs contained in those statements? In July, I published an essay entitled the “Divided States of America.” In that essay I wrote: “This country was formed and still operates united in division…How does a nation united by division become a nation unified in diversity?” What follows is an attempt to continue this consideration through an exploration of our “founding” and how such an investigation challenges the notion that the United States of America was founded as a pluralistic, secular nation with a firm division between Church and State.
The election of Donald Trump in 2016, his near re-election in 2020, and the political aftermath of that election framed by subterfuge, conspiracies, armed insurrection and continued adherence to the “Big Lie,” exposed the reality that we live in a country divided. To oversimplify, on one side, there are those who value, or at least do not oppose, this country’s unalterable continuing development as a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, diverse body politic. On the other side, there are those who resist and feel threatened by this development. In their view, the United States was founded as a White, Christian Nation and as such it should remain, even if maintaining or restoring it requires a new civil war.
Does this White Nationalist view have any basis in history? Does this view not go against our stated ideals as a secular, pluralistic democracy founded on separation of Church and State and based upon the belief that from the many, we are one as a nation?
The answers to these questions are “yes” and yes.” A fair consideration of these questions depends on a number of things. It depends upon an understanding of the distinctions between and among the concepts of nation, state, and nation state. It depends upon how our “founding” as a nation came about, when it came about, and for whom it came about. The answer also depends upon the weight we give to stated ideals (e.g., “all men are created equal”) undergirded by an assessment of how those ideals play out in actual fact throughout our history and to this very day.
In terms of the first consideration, Penn State’s Department of Geography provides useful definitions for nation, states, and nation-states. According to that site, “A State is an independent, sovereign government exercising control over a certain spatially defined and bounded area, whose borders are usually clearly defined and internationally recognized by other states.” The existence of a State also assumes acceptance by its people of the State’s power to regulate and control interactions within its boundaries and to regulate entry through its borders. By way of contrast:
A nation is a group of people who see themselves as a cohesive and coherent unit based on shared cultural or historical criteria. Nations are socially constructed units, not given by nature. Their existence, definition, and members can change dramatically based on circumstances. Nations in some ways can be thought of as “imagined communities” that are bound together by notions of unity that can pivot around religion, ethnic identity, language, cultural practice and so forth. The concept and practice of a nation work to establish who belongs and who does not (insider vs. outsider). Such conceptions often ignore political boundaries such that a single nation may “spill over” into multiple states. Furthermore, states ≠ nations: not every nation has a state (e.g., Kurds; Roma; Palestine). Some states may contain all or parts of multiple nations.
Finally, that brings us to the question of what is a “nation-state.” Again, according to the Penn State website, “A Nation-State is the idea of a homogenous nation governed by its own sovereign state—where each state contains one nation. This idea is almost never achieved.”
And the idea is never achieved for good reason. There is value to diversity. And besides, we live in a world where pervasive and invasive capital market expansion, climate change, and warring elites continually force people to migrate to areas where there is a modicum of safety and respect for human life, as well as some opportunity at the very least for survival and at best for prosperity.
By the above definition, the United States is a State, but it is difficult to make the case that this country is a nation-state. I say this not because ancestral purity or uniform religious observance are indispensable components for designation as a nation. A nation can comprise diverse people who are joined, through ideals and/or necessity, by a commitment to a common future. No, my conclusion is rather due to the social and political divisions within our borders, recurring proposals for State secession, warnings that we are at the precipice of a civil war, and the rise of political elements that promote divisive, fascist perspectives and programs. We have the startling rise of White militias (and to a lesser extent, Black militias). Increasing numbers of elected officials and candidates for office, with very motivated constituencies, openly promote anti-democratic processes from gerrymandering to undoing undesirable election results. We have a mass media controlled more and more by ideology as opposed to objective fact-finding and which divides political constituencies into profit-making market segments. Mass media is complemented by and supplemented with social media that turns political discussions into bias-confirming echo chambers. There is increased influence of (Christian) religion in our politics. There is the pervasive power of economic entities and elites controlling our governmental, legislative, regulatory and electoral processes. Grievance politics has turned all considerations of progressive legislation into a proposition of “us versus them.” And “them” is not only restricted to those migrating into this country from outside its borders but also those already here who are viewed as “others” – those who are not seen as God-fearing, White Christians.
Starting from the assumption that a nation is not something that is formed instantaneously once governing documents are drawn up and approved, we can better understand the current deficiencies in our national character. I would posit that a nation-state represents the social and political culmination of historical developments leading up to whatever formality enshrines a system of government. A nation is the distinguishable formulation of a people over time, a people defined by common history, shared culture, agreed-upon values and unified purpose. The United Colonies of America became the United States of America, but the legacy of the colonial experience of nation-building lived on, even if its formalization suggested otherwise. Given this, I would not place our founding in 1776, or 1787 or some other seminal date during and after our drive towards independence. At the very latest, I would suggest that our country’s founding occurred in 1607, with the founding of Jamestown. And just as there was no separation of Church and State in England at that time, there was likewise no separation of Church and State in its first permanent American colony. As examples, not only was attendance at Church service mandated but taxation, in the form of tithing, flowed through the parishes.
It is true that our country’s founding fathers were inspired by enlightenment and guided by history. But they did not create a nation. Beyond establishing independence, what they did was establish a State with institutions and processes for governance. And regardless of the enlightenment beliefs of the founders, or their determination not to fall prey to the religious battles that tore Europe apart in the late 16th through the middle of the 17th Century (a taste of which was already part of the colonial existence), their beliefs and the Constitution created based upon those beliefs could guide and influence but not dispositively define the political culture of the nation. Given this, I would ask you to consider that our nation’s founding dates back well before the 18th Century, going back at least to Jamestown in 1607. And further, I would posit that this incipient founding, not undone by the ultimate formalization of our founding in the late 18th Century, was as a White Christian Nation.
Of course, there remains the question of whether there has been acceptance in this informal founding for other than White people. Our history is clear. Native Americans were subjected to near genocide. Blacks were consigned to slavery and even after the Civil War were still subject to being enslaved through convict leasing programs; were still exposed to daily violence for actions ranging from business success to attempting to vote to simply being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Through local convention, state laws and Supreme Court rulings, Blacks were not given the benefits of citizenship. Even seeking legal redress through law enforcement could result in the most dire and fatal of consequences, as people like Mary Turner in Georgia would unfortunately discover.
Historically, not only Blacks but Native Americans and Chinese were denied access to our courts for redress of wrongs because they were not considered citizens. From an immigration perspective, the Chinese are the first group to ever be entirely excluded based upon nationality. At different points in time, immigration laws limited or excluded others that were not Northern Europeans, including Mexicans, (East) Indians, Filipinos, Muslims, Japanese and Eastern Europeans. And, of course, even though we were also at war with Italy and Germany, only Japanese Americans were placed in internment camps during World War Two. So, as this country continues to race toward a future where White political hegemony is eclipsed by globalization and globalized diversity, is it any wonder that a White Christian Nationalist movement has re-surfaced?
White Christian Nationalism is not the path for any productive future. But recognizing that there is a historical basis and a lasting legacy of White Christian Nationalism in this country may help both sides to reconcile differences. For those seeking to promote it, they should understand its dark side, a dark side that has oppressed, enslaved and destroyed tens of millions of human beings, along with entire cultures. For those opposing its resurgence, recognizing that White Christian Nationalism is part of our past, a past we cannot deny or ignore, can help facilitate open discussion and develop a path forward. The issue and the challenge we need to embrace is the development of an understanding not only that our nation-building experiment has developed organically over centuries but also that it continues to evolve to this day. Just as our founding did not commence with the Declaration of Independence or the adoption of the United States Constitution, neither was our nation’s defining White nationalistic characteristics fixed by its origins in the early 17th Century. Its genesis may have begun with White Christian Nationalism, but part of its foundational premise was also Christian, which appreciated in its entirety is grounded in ideals of love and inclusivity. Through a better and more comprehensive understanding of our history, those who cling to White nationalism should realize the absurdity of attempting to hold on to what amounts to an unworkable anachronism. Framing an honest appreciation of history within the contextual framework of our Constitution and its stated, if long and often ignored or perverted, ideals can assist us in looking forward and recognizing that our continued existence as a country, as a world power, as an example of progressive democracy, and finally as a nation requires that we fully appreciate how we have evolved so far and the benefits of pushing forward. And when we find our way to continue progress and set aside divisive and unproductive tribalism; when we commit to working for unity based upon equity, inclusivity and diversity, then we will become a nation.