Films, historical accounts, adventure novels are prone to romanticize the conquest of the West. It is easy to understand why film producers, historians, and novelists tend to describe America’s last frontier in positive terms and suppress the negative aspects of conquest when white settlers ultimately displaced Native Americans (Slotkin 29). This assertion and this type of interpretation did not spring out of anything; it came from the point of view of victorious leaders driven by the desperate need to conquer the West. It is difficult to find fault in their actions and aspirations because they truly believe that it was their destiny, and God’s will to conquer the last frontier (Roosevelt 19).
The overt expression of the sheer pleasure to conquer the West is nowadays treated with a concerned look. In many quarters, it is no longer politically correct to talk about the last frontier in the language utilized by Roosevelt and like-minded white leaders. They were the type of leaders that were unashamed of their participation in the conquest of the Great West. Nowadays, schoolchildren, high school, and college students are compelled to reinterpret the conquest of the West. The change in perspective is brought about by a heightened sensitivity to culture, race, and ancestral lands. Without a doubt, this new mindset came about after the Civil Rights movement influenced popular culture. It was also due to how minorities were able to win the war with regard to the importance of tolerance in a world characterized by globalization and cultural diversity.
If Theodore Roosevelt was alive today, his remarks against Native Americans would require modification. Roosevelt would contend with people that share the same sentiment as Charles Eastman. The Native American writer objected to the violent mindset of white settlers, and he was upset about the prevalence of military leaders like Roosevelt to design cruel war campaigns against defenseless and weak people. From the point of view of Eastman, white settlers preach a religion founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ. The “Christ ideal” he mentioned in his writings refers to the humility and the peace-loving demeanor of Jesus. In other words, there is a major gap between the white man’s belief system and how it is practiced in real life.
Roosevelt’s Reply
Theodore Roosevelt’s reply centers on the justifications for waging war against Native Americans. Before going any further, it is important to point out that Roosevelt was a beloved figure in the annals of U.S. history. He exemplified courage and integrity. His words carry weight, and he is an influential figure when it comes to a uniquely American philosophy with regard to the conquest of the West. He embodies a certain standard, especially when it comes to the conduct of white settlers and the worldview of a U.S. government that supported their foray into the ancestral lands of Native Americans (Turner 1).
Roosevelt viewed the West as a mission field and as a business opportunity. His point of view was similar to the colonizers sent by Catholic Spain during the Medieval Age. Roosevelt’s horseback on the way to the last frontier is reminiscent of the Spanish ships crossing the Pacific Ocean in order to conquer Pacific Islanders. Roosevelt did not share Eastman’s idealized view of Native Americans. At the same time, Roosevelt believed that white settlers were sent on a mission to civilize the Wild West. It is in these two points of contention that solidified the claim of mutual exclusivity when talking about the different opinions that separated Roosevelt and Eastman.
Roosevelt focused his rhetoric on the philosophical, moral, and religious significance of conquering the West. He made people believe that a Higher Power urged him to rally the troops and inspire them to travel westward. It is the same divine imperative that compelled them to vanquish their foes in the name of God. Roosevelt presented his views in a certain manner, and he made it appear as if he had no choice. As a result, Roosevelt persuaded a significant number of people to follow his lead. He was very persuasive because he believed every word that came out of his mouth.
A central theme in Roosevelt’s argument is the idea that Native Americans were savages. Roosevelt and like-minded leaders believed that it was their moral obligation to transform the West. Roosevelt was able to justify his claims. Nevertheless, it does not mean that he was absolutely correct in his interpretation of the Wild West.
Eastman’s Formidable Stance
Eastman presented a formidable counter-argument that compelled Americans to reinterpret the conquest of the West. His arguments were fueled by something more potent than a victim’s hapless plea or the moral authority of the original settlers of the prairie. Eastman carried with him the rights and privileges of a child of God. In other words, Eastman claimed to serve the same God.
Eastman made powerful claims, and he was able to force people to listen to what he said because he pointed to a common ground between the two contending parties. However, it was merely an opening salvo, because Eastman’s “Christ ideal” was the most potent weapon in his arsenal. He pointed out that Jesus encouraged his followers to accomplish goals and aspirations using non-violent means.
Counter-argument to Eastman’s Claims
If all the Native Americans were like Charles Eastman in terms of demeanor, depth of understanding, philosophy, and commitment to peace and prosperity, Roosevelt would lose in the debate. Eastman’s ideas weaken Roosevelt’s position. Roosevelt becomes the villain of the story. There is no justification for the wholesale slaughter of Native Americans. However, this is not the complete picture of the Indian wars or the interaction between white settlers and the original settlers of the Great West.
Native Americans looked like hapless prey, not because they were meek and timid. On many occasions, they were defeated in battles because they had no access to weapons. They were overwhelmed by white soldiers because they had no training in modern battle tactics. It is difficult to imagine the implications if there was a reversal of roles when it comes to the economic and military power of Native Americans and white settlers. In other words, it is hard to consider the ramifications if the white settlers were the prey, and the Native Americans were the hunters.
There were several factors that made it impossible for Native American tribes to repel the invaders. It can be argued that Native American tribes would never hesitate to use weapons and battle tactics to their advantage. It turned out that the invaders had better armaments, but more importantly, they were more united as they were supported by a central government.
Roosevelt’s point of view was influenced by the terrible experiences of his ancestors. They came from Europe, and they were driven to the New World due to economic, political, and religious persecution. They had no choice but to create a new home in the New World. Those who were poor, yet driven by ambitions of a great life, they had no choice but to go westward wherein lands were abundant and free.
In an ideal situation, white settlers preferred a diplomatic approach. It was better to forge agreements and covenants with Native Americans in order to create a system of purchasing, leasing, or sharing the land. However, this was nothing more than wishful thinking, because a significant number of Native American tribes preferred to slug it out in battles.
In the end, the struggle between white settlers and Native Americans was impossible to justify in the context of religious and philosophical frameworks. It all boiled down to the desperate need for people to survive in a hostile land. White settlers were driven westward because of self-preservation. Native Americans were forced to fight the trespassers because of the same motivation. In the end, the strongest group of people became the new owners of the Great West.
Conclusion
Charles Eastman issued a powerful challenge against Roosevelt’s rhetorics that white settlers had the religious, moral, and philosophical justification for conquering the West. Eastman pointed out that they served the same God; therefore, there was no justification to the claim that Native American tribes must be subjected to the whims and desires of another group of people. Eastman’s argument was valid; however, he did not mention an important fact. Eastman failed to mention that if given the opportunity and resources, Native Americans would never hesitate to apply the same level of atrocity and violence. As a result, Roosevelt did not need to use religious and moral arguments to justify his actions. He simply had to retell the story of the struggles of his people, how they were driven from Europe, and forced to settle in the New World.
They simply claimed to share the land with the Native Americans. However, in many cases, the natives refused to grant their desires. It was not their fault because both groups were driven with the same need for self-preservation. In the end, the strongest overcame the weaker foe. Nevertheless, there is no law or rule that prevented both groups from healing the negative consequences of past deeds.
Works Cited
Roosevelt, Theodore. The Winning of the West. Gutenberg Epub, 2004. Web.
Slotkin, Richard. Gunfighter Nation: The Myth of the Frontier in Twentieth-Century America. New York: Harper Collins, 1992. Print.
Turner, Frederick. The Significance of the Frontier in American History (1894). Web.
American Historical Association, 2013. Web.