In the four centuries following Columbus’ arrival in America, European Settlers started showing interest in the lands that were neighboring them. They wanted to expand their territories. The settlers had to do convince themselves as well as other people that it was right, so they offered a number of justifications for conquest and territorial expansion. Most of these justification statements were made by the people who had visited the lands earlier. This essay looks at the explanations that were given by the Columbus, Edward Waterhouse, Mary Rowland and James Bowlin, as they tried to justify the claim that they had to claim the lands they visited.
In his first encounter with Spanish in 1493, Christopher Columbus thought that there was need for authority from the Queen’s land to be exercised on Spain. He had a report that supported the expansion of territory saying that it was the right thing for the Spanish.
According to his description, he said that the Spanish were too generous to refuse the offer if it were to be presented even if they were not given anything in return. The generosity of the Spanish was only evident in people who would serve several highnesses, among them the Queen of England, and of course, God. So it was suitable for the development of the Christian religion. He perceived the Spanish as weak people who did not seem like they would even try to defend themselves. He says that they were the most coward people he had ever seen.
He even refers to their lack of weapons, by dismissing what they had as reed stems that had sharp stakes. He described the way Spain was full of good things: It is a lovely country that has beautiful beaches, nice plantations and many gold mines and other mineral resources. While he acknowledges that he found people there and that they were generous, he says that they need to be taken care of because the people there are likely to destroy the beautiful land. Columbus reinforces this claim by giving an introduction that would make the listener assume that the level of primitivism among the Spanish was so high. He said that they all walked naked; from adults to children, and that the men looked like it would take them a very short time to destroy the island and beautiful beaches.
Columbus also assumes that the Spanish were so naïve that the few tokens he gave them had already given them a preconceived assumption that there is going to be only generosity from the Settlers. What he forgot was that the Spanish had been living on this land from time immemorial and survived.
While Columbus explained that the expanding of the territory was to save the land of Spain and that it was for the good of the Spanish, Edward Waterhouse’s reason for the expansion was revenge. He recounts the events of an Indian attack on the Virginia Settlement where he was in 1622. His argument about the reason why they had to extend the boundaries was revenge on the Indians. According to him, the Indians had no right to have attacked the settlers. He explains that the Indians had gone against the laws of the land, God’s law and the law of the nature of nations, to kill all the people they killed, among them women and children. According to Edward, this was unacceptable and since the Indians had a plan to destroy them, it was just for them to have authority over their land and fight to gain this control. What he put totally at bay in his mind was the fact that they had to defend their land which they, by all means White Settlers had an intention of taking.
Mary Rowland’s experience on tenth of February, 1675, during the King Phillip war was almost like that of Waterhouse, except that she believed that it was God’s will for them to control the Indians, rather than revenge on them for what they had done to her.
She had been held captive by the Indians during the King Phillip War. She says that whatever she went through during the period of being in captivity taught her that God wanted her to see that there was so much darkness in this land that it needed to be re-directed towards light. According to her argument, she was glad she had been treated miserably, maybe it was a way that God used to communicate to his people that there was need to go and occupy the land and help those people in India, who she refers to as pagans. She asserts that she had spent so many Sabbaths in a worthless manner in front of God and that God wanted to show her that there was work for her to do in India. For this reason, she says that there was work of ministering to the Indians and as a result, the right thing to do was to put the area under the authority of the Queen. All her argument keeps away from revenge unlike Waterhouse’s.
William Penn, in 1681 wanted to promote his colony. Unlike Mary Rowland who said that it was God’s will, William argued that colonies were productive and if taken good care of, they would benefit a country as they could bring positive commercial benefits to the country. He goes ahead to say that those who had adapted this design were famous for it.
He asserted that the plantations in the colonies would yield more to those who were willing to go and work there than they would yield in their own country. In line with this good production, the surplus produce would go to export trade where it would fetch more money. This was advantageous to the English merchants and seamen.The plantations would also provide employments to the people in the colonies and as a result bring respect to England.
It was a land full of resources in terms of the food- fowl, fish and wild deer are mentioned. It also had plenty of fuel in terms of trees for wood and it had other products whose usefulness was described in terms of its usefulness and profitability to the land of Europe for instance, silk, flax, hemp, wine, cider, wood, madder, licorice, tobacco, potashes, and iron. Other products include hides, tallow, pipe-starves, beef, pork, sheep, wool, corn, among others.
In his explanation, William said that there were people in England who would do good service in these lands by trying to promote discipline and a government that was just to the people of this land, whom he described as having good intentions. Such people, he said, would not be very useful to the nation that was settled in customs.They would do a great service to the nation by working in the colonies.
While William Penn talked about economical benefits of the colonies, William Clark, in 1806 entered into diplomacy with the natives to make them approve of the colonial authority over them. He was talking to the natives about there initial agreement to help him and his “friendly government” to deal with the barbaric people among them. He told them is intention of taking some of the most influential chiefs so that they would visit the US and come back to report how developed the land was and how well the resources are well managed among the population.
William tried to explain to the natives the good intentions of his government, which was, according to him, to reconcile the esteem and protect the friendship of all the barbaric states that were within its territory using all the power it had.
He however threatens that they should know that the government-“their government” would be prompt in punishing them in case there are aggressions. He explained further the intentions by the government to establish trade in the region. He wanted the message passed to those who were rebelling. The benefits he mentioned to the natives were that there would be trade development. He tried to make them perceive his presence as a sacrifice- he said that he had left plenty in his country to come to their land. He refers to them as children who are answerable to their father.
As W. Clark sought to discuss the importance of the settlers to the natives, Lieutenant Jose saw fighting as a way of getting what they wanted. In the war between the Texans and the Mexicans in 1836, Lieutenant Colonel Jose Enrique de la Pena defended the Mexicans’ action saying that the Texans are the ones who had attacked them. According to him, there was a lot of ungratefulness for the things they had offered the Texans, so in turn they had to fight them. He says that the war was inevitable. Their commander had referred to the fight as their sacred duty. They declared that the land in which they fought had been uninhabited and that those who were fighting for it were just wanderers and adventurers who had benefit more than even the Mexicans, the generosity. The fight was aimed at revenging, and protecting “their soil”. They wanted to punish them for having killed their comrades. They believed that for the things they had done to them during the war, for instance they refused to surrender, they deserved to be killed. The Mexicans even assumed that the land in which the Texans lived belonged to them (Mexicans).
After the war with the Texans, the Mexicans were rejoicing for having won the state. John L. O’Sullivan in a newspaper report in 1845 expressed the emotion perfectly well in his report where he was defining “Manifests Destiny”. He was supporting Lieutenant Colonel Jose’s idea they were justified to fight and take over the land. Although it was through a war that they were able to get control of her, John says that they (Mexicans) had approved the acceptance. The Convention of the state at the time was a lady who, after surrendering to the Mexican, was praised by John as having assessed the situation and seen it as the best option.
He justifies that by being under the Union, Texas would be owned by an American population that would guarantee state independency. There would also be a system that corresponded to the federal system. According to John, the fight and control of Texas by America was a freedom mission. That Texas was now free. To John, the fact that the freedom of the Texans had been tampered with did not matter, as long as his people /leaders called it freedom, he would follow.
Unlike all the others who really showed their passion in the expansion of territories, James Bowlin set in with a different perception in 1846 when he expressed his wonder of whether there was a possibility of Western lands. According to him, public land was entrusted to the government for the good of the people. Not in the hands of greedy legislator who would squander it. Since land was the basis of all human property, its utility and distribution has to follow very important principles. He differs with the others by saying that the taking of several pieces of land from several countries was an indication that the government wished to gain political dominance. He even said that after taking the land, if it is not shared equally among the supposed citizens, then the system is faulty and is not fulfilling what it should and what the citizens expect from it. James Bowlin symbolizes the change of perceptions that started taking place after the colonial land acquisition period and slave trade period and the other period.
From Columbus’ time, the white settlers looked for all the reason to stress the fact that there was need to take the land and exercise authority over it. Reasons were varied from Columbus’ reason that it would save the beautiful country Spain, Edward said that it was necessary to fight the Indians because they had fought them, Mary Rowland viewed it as a call from God, While William Penn had the economic benefit in mind. While William Clark’s view was that it was necessary for the colonies as the white settlers had very many good intentions, and he even sought to make the natives understand, Colonel Jose saw it as a duty that he had to fulfill. When the Mexicans defeated the Texans, they justified themselves that it was reason enough for them to have authority in the land of the Texans.
However, as time went by, there arose people like James Bowlin who came and challenged the whole idea saying that if both the white settlers and the Colonies do not benefit equally, then it ended up being total greed. This is the change that occurred and as time went by, the perception changed and the views changed.
Reference
Cobbs E, Hoffman, John Major Problems in American History, 2nd Ed, Vol: 1877 (Houghton Mifflin, 2007).