Read Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America 1492-1830 for Free Online Page B
Authors: John H. Elliott
Tags: European History, Amazon.com
history of the human race, explained that Saint Peter and his successors possessed jurisdiction over the whole world, and had granted the newly discovered lands to Ferdinand and Isabella and their heirs, to whom the local population must submit, or face the waging of a just war against them.43 The right of the papacy to dispose of non-Christian lands and peoples in this way was in due course to be contested by Spanish scholastics like Francisco de Vitoria, but papal concession was to remain fundamental to Spanish claims to possession of the Indies, although it might be reinforced or supplemented, as Cortes tried to supplement it, by other arguments.
Papal authorization was obviously not an option for Protestant England when it found itself faced with identical problems over rights of occupation and possession, although the general tenor of the argument based on papal donation could easily be adapted to English circumstances, as it was by Richard Hakluyt: `Now the Kings and Queens of England have the name of Defenders of the Faith; by which title I think they are not only charged to maintain and patronize the faith of Christ, but also to enlarge and advance the same.'44 England, therefore, like Spain, acquired a providential mission in America, a mission conceived, as by Christopher Carleill in 1583, in terms of `reducing the savage people to Christianity and civility ...'4s
At the time of Newport's arrival, the Virginia Company is more likely to have been exercised by prior Spanish claims to the land than by those of its indigenous inhabitants, with whom it was hoped that the colonists could live side by side in peace. A few years later William Strachey dismissed Spanish claims with contempt: `No prince may lay claim to any amongst these new discoveries ... than what his people have discovered, took actual possession of, and passed over to right ... '46 Physical occupation of the land and putting it to use in conformity with established practice at home was the proper test of ownership in English eyes.
This Roman Law argument of res nullius could conveniently be deployed against Spaniards who had failed to establish their nominal claims by actual settlement; but soon it also became the principal justification for seizing land from the Indians,47 although in the early years of settlement it seemed wise to cover all eventualities. In a sermon preached before the Virginia Company in 1610 William Crashaw advanced a range of arguments to justify the Virginia enterprise. One of these, borrowed from the Spanish theologian Francisco de Vitoria '41 was based on the universal right conferred by the `law of nations' (ius gentium) to freedom of trade and communication. `Christians', he asserted, `may traffic with the heathen.' There were other justifications too. `We will', he continued, `take from them only that they may spare us. First, their superfluous land' - the res nullius argument. `Secondly, their superfluous commodities . . .' Finally, there was England's national mission, as formulated by Christopher Carleill and others during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. `We give to the Savages what they most need. 1. Civility for their bodies. 2. Christianity for their souls.'49 All possible moral and legal objections to the enterprise were thus conveniently met.
In conducting relations with the Indians, Newport and his colleagues were under firm instructions from the company: `In all your passages you must have great care not to offend the Naturals if you can eschew it ...'S0 No doubt inspired by the example of Mexico, where the indigenous population was alleged to have believed that the strange white visitors were immortal, the council in London also told the resident councillors to conceal any deaths among the colonists, and thus prevent `the Country people' from perceiving `they are but common men' .51 But the local tribes seem to have been neither deceived nor overawed. While Newport was still away on his reconnaissance of the James
Papal authorization was obviously not an option for Protestant England when it found itself faced with identical problems over rights of occupation and possession, although the general tenor of the argument based on papal donation could easily be adapted to English circumstances, as it was by Richard Hakluyt: `Now the Kings and Queens of England have the name of Defenders of the Faith; by which title I think they are not only charged to maintain and patronize the faith of Christ, but also to enlarge and advance the same.'44 England, therefore, like Spain, acquired a providential mission in America, a mission conceived, as by Christopher Carleill in 1583, in terms of `reducing the savage people to Christianity and civility ...'4s
At the time of Newport's arrival, the Virginia Company is more likely to have been exercised by prior Spanish claims to the land than by those of its indigenous inhabitants, with whom it was hoped that the colonists could live side by side in peace. A few years later William Strachey dismissed Spanish claims with contempt: `No prince may lay claim to any amongst these new discoveries ... than what his people have discovered, took actual possession of, and passed over to right ... '46 Physical occupation of the land and putting it to use in conformity with established practice at home was the proper test of ownership in English eyes.
This Roman Law argument of res nullius could conveniently be deployed against Spaniards who had failed to establish their nominal claims by actual settlement; but soon it also became the principal justification for seizing land from the Indians,47 although in the early years of settlement it seemed wise to cover all eventualities. In a sermon preached before the Virginia Company in 1610 William Crashaw advanced a range of arguments to justify the Virginia enterprise. One of these, borrowed from the Spanish theologian Francisco de Vitoria '41 was based on the universal right conferred by the `law of nations' (ius gentium) to freedom of trade and communication. `Christians', he asserted, `may traffic with the heathen.' There were other justifications too. `We will', he continued, `take from them only that they may spare us. First, their superfluous land' - the res nullius argument. `Secondly, their superfluous commodities . . .' Finally, there was England's national mission, as formulated by Christopher Carleill and others during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. `We give to the Savages what they most need. 1. Civility for their bodies. 2. Christianity for their souls.'49 All possible moral and legal objections to the enterprise were thus conveniently met.
In conducting relations with the Indians, Newport and his colleagues were under firm instructions from the company: `In all your passages you must have great care not to offend the Naturals if you can eschew it ...'S0 No doubt inspired by the example of Mexico, where the indigenous population was alleged to have believed that the strange white visitors were immortal, the council in London also told the resident councillors to conceal any deaths among the colonists, and thus prevent `the Country people' from perceiving `they are but common men' .51 But the local tribes seem to have been neither deceived nor overawed. While Newport was still away on his reconnaissance of the James