A Few Key Quotes From Robert Jones's Book on White Supremacy

In his excellent book on the history of American racial domination and genocide, Robert Jones focuses on "The Doctrine of Discovery," according to which it is always perfectly acceptable--indeed, required--for civilized, Christian (i.e., white, European) peoples to wrest land from darker savages--whether that latter group were already long established somewhere (like the indigenous people living in North America or Australia) or  arrived later--whether brought against their will like black slaves from Africa, or came voluntarily, like current immigrants from Mexico or Haiti. 

Jones puts the date at which he takes the The Doctrine of Discovery to have become the foundational principle of the future United States of America at 1493, but notes that its official enshrinement into legality here was accomplished by Chief Justice Marshall in a 33-page decision on the 1823 case of Johnson v. M'Intosh. Marshall there opined that 

[The rights of the Indians to sovereignty as independent nations] were necessarily diminished, and their power to dispose of the soil at their own will, to whomsoever they pleased, was denied by the original fundamental principle that discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it. 

While the different nations of Europe respected the right of the natives, as occupants, they asserted the ultimate dominion to be in themselves; and claimed and exercised, as a consequence of this ultimate dominion, a power to grant the soil, while yet in possession of the natives.

The Chief Justice seemed a little embarassed by this proclamation when he also noted in his opinion that, 

The potentates of the old world found no difficulty in convincing themselves that they made ample compensation to the inhabitants of the new, by bestowing on them civilization and Christianity, in exchange [for giving up their] unlimited independence.

But Marshall himself didn't rely on any exchange  being made here, fair or not. In his view, precedence was enough. Might has always simply made right.

Unlike Marshall, Jones, a Ph.D. in religion and a graduate of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, remains troubled by the Christian  background of these power grabs. Jones has not been alone in that sentiment. In fact, his book provides this excerpt from a 1955 sermon given in Montgomery, Alabama by the 26-year old Rev. Martin Luther King:

The white men who lynch Negroes worship Christ. That jury in Mississippi, which a few days ago in the Emmett Till case, freed two white men from what might be considered one of the most brutal and inhuman crimes of the twentieth century, worships Christ. The trouble is that all people, like the Pharisee, go to church regularly, they pay their tithes and offerings, and observe religiously the various cermonial requirements. The trouble with these people, however, is that they worship Christ emotionally and not morally. They cast his ethical and moral insights behind the gushing smoke of emotional adoration and ceremonial piety,

I get what King is saying here, but I'm not sure he was focused on quite the central problem. 

I see the use of Christianity in this context as being not very different from the employment of a claimed love of democracy as being a key reason for rapacious activities. Both are absolutely absurd. As Jones tells us, in the few weeks after a particularly disgusting display of violence in the Mississippi counties of Warren and Hinds in which white mobs killed 50 black Americans, including children and a state senator, taking over the of levers of "democracy" became the goal of the supremacists. 

"[W]hites engaged in a broad effort to rig the elections, including vigilante violence, voter intimidation, bribery of election officials and ballot tampering." Many blacks were hiding in the woods on the next election day. In fact, in one key county in which, thanks to  Reconstruction, blacks had briefly done well, only seven Republican ballots were counted as compared to 4,000 Democratic ballots. Naturally, once in power, the white minority did all they could to impeach any remaining black office-holders. These acts may have been proclaimed to be "redemption" by the self-described pious  Christian whites in Mississippi, but they weren't actually connected with anything in the Bible, or even with the Doctrine of Discovery. Supremacists have long touted religion or democracy (or whatever else they thought might help) when useful, but their actions have always been about getting their money, power, and self-respect back. And, of course, about simple hatred and fear of "the other."

If Jesus had specifically preached against any such domination principle as the Doctrine of Discovery (and I presume that many scholars would say he did!), it would have made no difference at all to those conducting their  lynching parties on their way to watch baseball games. Their "faith" has been no more important than their "patriotism" or "love of democracy" as  inducements to their appalling activities. It has been their cotton revenues, their exclusive right to hold public office, their position as kingpins, and their feelings of repulsion that have always been the significant incitements.

Well, what about now? Same deal. Any spiel about the deep Christianity woven into some "nationalistic" movement is as phony as current Republican claims of a desire to "save our democracy" by such methods as stringent voter ID requirements. I.F. Stone made what was going on perfectly explicit as long ago as the Emmett Till trial when he wrote, 

The South must become either truly democratic or the base of a new racist and Fascist movement which could threaten the whole country and its institutions. 

Stone saw where we were heading back in the 1950s, and it was not toward anything that can correctly be called "Populism," which is a type of authentic, if arguably radical, democracy. It was in exactly the opposite direction.