The Great Awakening

The Great Awakening occurred in the eighteenth century as it began in Europe and quickly spread to America, and was considered a “philosophical movement.” (Liberty 155) The Great Awakening was becoming a popular movement for many and changing how society viewed others. However, ministers criticized this new preaching and felt it was causing chaos for society as well as their church (religion). “Many ministers were concerned that westward expansion, commercial development, the growth of Enlightenment rationalism, and lack of individual engagement in church services were undermining religious devotion." (Liberty 156). The revivalists were hated by the ministers and portrayed as uneducated. The “critics of the Great Awakening produced sermons, pamphlets, and newspaper articles condemning the revivalist preachers for lacking theological training, encouraging disrespect for “the established church and her ministers,” and filling churches with “general order.”” (Liberty 157) The critics felt that in order for society to work in an orderly fashion there had to be unity in the religion and the people needed to follow laws. The main criticism that Jonathan Arnold made against Reverend George Whitefield was that he was ignorant, preached “false doctrine” and charged “him as being a deceiver.” (Freedom 85-86) Those that were opposed to evangelical preachers were worried that Reverend Mr. Whitefield exclaimed “against all the bishops and clergymen of the Church of England” and passing “unwarrantable sentences upon men as if he was the Supreme Judge.” (Freedom 86) Based on the defense of George Whitefield who proclaimed that God was “merciful”, preached that “men and women could save themselves by repenting of their sins.” (Freedom 85) Jonathan Arnold was concerned that this movement would cause people to lose their tradition within the Church. After the Great Awakening was over it had people questioning, thinking, and challenging the traditional mindset of why things were they way they were and if it was right or wrong. This included people questioning how slaves were being treated and condemning slavery. The Great Awakening influenced how society freed slaved by viewing “black and white were brothers in Christ (Liberty 158), how people wanted to treat others as equals, the right or freedom of religion and all of those changes have directly affected and/or influenced our freedoms today.

English Land as a Basis of Liberty

The English thought the Indians were not using their land in a useful manner and felt that they could actually use the land in many ways (better) and gain in many areas. The English viewed the land as the basis of liberty because the more land a person owned the more power of authority they assumed by feeling a pride of ownership. The English viewed their pride of ownership as a basis of power and liberty. The more land they owned the more crops they could cultivate and the more money they could make and send back home. The more money the English made the easier it would be to spread their religion and have more people convert to their religion, which would empower their church more and more. The “Owning land gave men control over their own labor and, in most colonies, the right to vote.” (Liberty 59). With the pride of ownership came the power of owning their land and that turned into power of voting. The English saw land as liberty. Whereas, the Indians viewed the land as free for anyone and not able to be owned. The Indians viewed the land in an appreciative / respectful manner by only using what they needed for survival and not necessarily for financial gain like the English. The Virginia People were given 50 acres of land. They were looking for instant wealth by mining gold and silver. The New England People received land grants from the Government, which were divided into housing lots with room far farming. As a community they worked hard together. The English felt they knew how to use the land in a better, effective manner with financial and religious gains compared to the Indians. The English forced and tricked the Indians into giving them their land. Obviously the English started conflict with the Indians which led into retaliation. The English wanted the land for financial and religious gain, whereas the Indians valued the land for food, shelter, and survival. The Indians did not use the land for any gain, they respected the land, only used what they absolutely needed for themselves for a means of survival as did their past generations of family members; not for profit. The conflict became evident after they were forced and tricked out of their homes (land). The English made the Indians dependent on them for a means of survival because the land was their shelter and food (hunting) and the English took everything they had (land).

Richard Hakluyt

The English wanted to colonize the New World for a variety of reasons. In fact, Richard Hakluyt gave Queen Elizabeth twenty-three benefited reasons to support the colonization including the benefits of economic, political, religious, nationalist, and social (Freedom 25). England and Spain both wanted to spread their own religion and colonize the New World. England on the other hand had a problem with overpopulation and Spain did not. Spain wanted to spread Catholicism whereas England wanted to spread Protestantism. Just as Spain justified its empire in part by claiming to convert Indians to Catholicism, England expressed its imperial ambitions in terms of an obligation to liberate the New World from the tyranny of the Pope (Liberty 55). England wanted to expand their religion and colonization to gain more power and rights of trade. National power and glory were never far from the minds of the era's propagandists of empire, and Hakluyt insisted that trade would be the basis of England's empire unlike early adventures such as Raleigh who thought of wealth in terms of deposits of gold (Liberty 56). England had relatively minor power in Europe at the end of the sixteenth century and felt they could come to rival the wealth and standing of great nations like Spain and France (Liberty 56). England wanted the New World for the use of the soil and it was a safe easy travel made twice a year without passing any other country, territory, or prince (Freedom 26). England wanted to use the soil for cultivation for the fertile land of "great plenty." Its animals were supposedly so abundant and its climate and soil so favorable that colonists could enrich the mother country and themselves by providing English consumer goods now supplied by foreigners and opening a new market for English products (Liberty 56). Richard Hakluyt felt that the English settlements would help rescue the New World and its inhabitants from the influence of Catholicism and tyranny. Richard Hakluyt wrote "tied as slaves" under the Spanish rule and that the Indians were "crying out to us.... to come and help." He believed the Indians would welcome the English as bearers of liberty do to the mistreatment, and slavery by the Spanish. Indians were oppressed by the Spanish and would welcome the British as bearers of “liberty” (Freedom 25). Richard Hakluyt felt the Indians would welcome English settlers and "revolt clean from the Spaniard," crying "with ine voice, Liberia, Liberuam Liberia, as desirous of liberty and freedom" (Liberty 56). However, England would repeat much of Spain's behavior in the New World.

Early European Contact

The main factors fueling European expansion was the hope of finding alternate trade routes, which would allow them to avoid (bypass) the taxes that were required when traveling through the traditional trade routes that were secured by the Ottoman Empire as well as converting others to Catholicism. “The European conquest of America began as an offshoot of the quest for a sea route to India, China, and the islands of the East Indies, the source of the silk, tea, spices, porcelain, and other luxury goods on which international trade in the early modern era centered. Profit and piety-the desire to eliminate Islamic middlemen and win control of the lucrative trade for Christian western Europe-combined to inspire the quest for a direct route to Asia.” (Liberty 19-20). “But the Spanish took the lead in exploration and conquest. Inspired by a search for wealth, national glory, and the desire to spread Catholicism, Spanish conquistadores, often accompanied by religious missionaries and carrying flags emblazoned with the sign of the cross, radiated outward from Hispaniola.” (Liberty 24) Since Spain was in a holy war against Islam, Spain felt justified to spread their faith among others. “Convinced of the superiority of Catholicism to all other religions, Spain insisted that the primary goal of the colonization was to save the Indians from heathenism and prevent them from falling under the sway of Protestantism.” (Liberty 31) “Even enslaving the natives was justified as a means of liberating them from their own backwardness and savagery and enabling them to become part of Christian civilization.” (Liberty 32) The Canary Islands benefited from Columbus as they become the center of colonization. The Indians on Hispaniola faced many devastating dilemmas including being forced to convert to Catholicism, be raped, murdered, enslaved, and surrender their gold and silver to the Spanish colonizers. It must have been difficult for the Indians to continue to stand-up for what they truly believed in and possibly converted to Catholicism simply to resist the consequences of refusing the Spain’s demand. “Spanish rule, especially in its initial period, witnessed a disastrous fall in Indian population, not only because of epidemics but also because of the brutal conditions of labor to which Indians were subjected to.” (Liberty 32) Bartolome de Las Casas and the Spanish had drastically different views on what type of treatment was acceptable with (against) the Indians. Bartolome de Las Casas viewed the Indians as innocent people who were treated unfairly. “Known as the “Apostle of the Indians,” Bartolome de Las Casas, a Catholic priest, was the most eloquent critic of Spanish mistreatment of the New World’s native population. In 1514, he freed his Indian slaves and began to preach against the injustices of Spanish rule. In his History of the Indies, Las Casas denounced Spain for causing the death of millions of innocent people. Las Casas called for the Indians to enjoy the rights of other subjects of Spain.” (Freedom 11)