What do you think?
Rate this book
Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, and Manifest Destiny
Native America, Discovered and Conquered takes a fresh look at American history through the lens of the Doctrine of Discovery—the legal basis that Europeans and Americans used to lay claim to the land of the indigenous peoples they “discovered.” Robert J. Miller illustrates how the American colonies used the Doctrine of Discovery against the Indian nations from 1606 forward. Thomas Jefferson used the doctrine to exert American authority in the Louisiana Territory, to win the Pacific Northwest from European rivals, and to “conquer” the Indian nations. In the broader sense, these efforts began with the Founding Fathers and with Thomas Jefferson’s Corps of Discovery, and eventually the Doctrine of Discovery became part of American law, as it still is today.
Miller shows how Manifest Destiny grew directly out of the legal elements and policies of the Doctrine of Discovery and how Native peoples, whose rights stood in the way of this destiny, were “discovered” and then “conquered.” Miller’s analysis of the principles of discovery brings a new perspective and valuable insights to the study of Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, the Louisiana Purchase, the Pacific Northwest, American expansionism, and U.S. Indian policy. This Bison Books edition includes a new afterword by the author.
Miller shows how Manifest Destiny grew directly out of the legal elements and policies of the Doctrine of Discovery and how Native peoples, whose rights stood in the way of this destiny, were “discovered” and then “conquered.” Miller’s analysis of the principles of discovery brings a new perspective and valuable insights to the study of Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, the Louisiana Purchase, the Pacific Northwest, American expansionism, and U.S. Indian policy. This Bison Books edition includes a new afterword by the author.
240 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
17 people are currently reading
136 people want to read
About the author
Robert J. Miller
47 books17 followersLaw School Professor, Lewis & Clark Law School, Portland Oregon
Tribal Judge
"
Tribal Judge
"
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
June 21, 2014
Manifest destiny, historically the idea that the USA and its people have special/distinctive virtues, that there was a special mission to ‘civilise’ the west in the image of the self-constructed image of a yeoman east and the notion that the USA people and state had an irresistible obligation (i.e., destiny) to act on and achieve this duty in one of the great historical myths. This is not to say that it was false – many actually believed and acted on the idea – but it is mythical in that it was not distinctive to the USA, or at least that is one of several implications of this impressive and important piece of legal history. ‘Manifest destiny’ is little more than a label for and ideology to underpin empire building; as a label it emerged in the middle of the 19th century but, as Miller shows convincingly, as an ideology it is embedded in the very foundation of the USA, in that it is based in an early modern (and earlier, there is good evidence of its use in the 1400s) European legal notion that he (and others) label the Doctrine of Discovery.
Miller’s case is that the Doctrine of Discovery has ten essential components (but we need to note that these components manifest themselves in different ways in different places, largely but not exclusively because of colonial and imperial conditions on the ground)
1. European first ‘discovery’, that is the first European state to ‘discover’ a new land has specific ‘rights’;
2. Occupancy and possession, but these ‘rights’ are not in perpetuity and the ‘new land’ must be settled and occupied in order for those ‘rights’ to be actualised;
3. Part of that actualisation involves pre-emption or the sole right to buy land from the previous and existing native peoples as inhabitants;
4. These native peoples retain native title rights but on the basis of occupancy only, while underlying title as a form of constrained fee rather than fee simple is held by the settler (European) state;
5. Meaning that native title involves only limited sovereign and commercial rights restricted to relations with the (European) settler state;
6. This settler state extends its claims derived from occupancy and possession through the principle of contiguity so it is not only settled land where settlers hold title but also to surrounding land and resources, a principle extended by the claim that occupancy and possession of a river mouth granted ownership of that entire river catchment;
7. This title was further enhanced because the principle to terra nullius held that the land was, in many cases, unoccupied and therefore not owned (empty) if, in the view of these European settlers, the land was not being ‘properly used’ (that is, cultivated and farmed);
8. These claims were further underpinned by the association of ‘civilisation’ with Christianity meaning that all non-Christian peoples were deemed not to have the same rights to land, sovereignty and self-determination;
9. Meaning that claiming Discovery rights involved ‘civilising’ indigenous peoples, but more importantly that in acting on basis of God’s mission Europeans brought and should impose civilisation;
10. Which if resisted could be imposed by conquest which also had the advantage of negating indigenous people’s occupancy rights and therefore freeing title for settlers (and as an aside, herein lies the contemporary discussions about ‘just war’).
Crucially for Miller, this Doctrine is not historical (as in of the past but no longer existing) but pervasive in US law.
The book then is a detailed and close analysis of late colonial and early republican law and practice, focussing on the early Republic and with a detailed exploration of the mission to claim what became the Oregon territory (now Washington, Oregon & Idaho) as part of the USA. In doing so Miller explores not only the understanding of the Doctrine of Discovery in Thomas Jefferson’s work before , during and after his term as President but also in Lewis & Clark’s expedition under Jefferson’s direction. Not content with this issue in the USA Miller shows the significance of the Doctrine in Spanish, French and British (which he continually labels English) claims to parts of North America. Essential to the argument is that there was explicit and knowing invocation of Discovery as a doctrine and as legal principle, and that this was widely and popularly understood and known.
As is the case with many legal arguments, the initial case is built by accumulation, which in the early stages means a tendency to add legislation, treaty, case law and public discussions and debates one on top of the other. Once he gets into evidence drawn from the 1820s and onwards the case is constructed by representative example, and when he moves on to show the continuing presence of Discovery in US law in the current era (i.e., since the 1950s) it become argument by illustrative example.
Miller concludes with a brief outline of the continuing presence of Discovery in US law and with a really useful outline of its impact on and presence in US ‘Indian’ law and policies. He also proposes an approach to addressing and dealing with this presence which is incremental (and in political terms ‘realistic’/evolutionary rather than revolutionary); in this sense his approach may help develop a better policy approach but does not seem to me to address the fundamental colonial antagonism that lies at the heart of settler colonies and states.
More generally, in terms of US history the book presents two major historiographical challenges. The first to the status of the Lewis & Clark expedition where there is a current tendency to downplay its significance through the use of an argument that occupation would have happened anyway. Miller’s case is that the US claim against Britain to the Oregon Territory (and therefore before Mexican-American War to a Pacific coastal presence) is based on Lewis & Clark’s claims along with initial discovery of the Columbia River (a weak claim because although a US citizen Robert Gray was not an agent of the Government) and occupancy by US citizen fur trappers. The second challenge is to the novelty of Manifest Destiny as a mid-19th century doctrine. Instead, Miller convincingly argues that ‘Manifest Destiny’ is a label for already existing practice and law.
It is, to my mind at least, this second challenge that is the really important one in that is reinforces his point that exploring the Doctrine of Discovery has significance well beyond the settlement of the Oregon Territory. In this, however, he does not go far enough (although his evidence is centred on Lewis & Clark and Jefferson); the case he is making is, as he suggests, an example of a wider significance in US settler and colonisation marking the continental empire and colonisation of an already occupied and owned land. The evidence also has profound significance in other colonies of settlement. On the basis of my previous work in a job dealing with the legal basis of settlement and land title in Aotearoa/New Zealand I can recognise close parallels between the application of the Doctrine of Discovery in the USA in the lands that during the 19th century became a British settler colony now known as New Zealand, yet there is little systematic work that explores the ten aspects of Discovery in that context.
I am sure readers with a more nuanced and sophisticated grasp of US history and especially the colonisation of indigenous territory and peoples will read this differently and may be likely to reach different conclusions. My knowledge of British imperial and colonial action, mainly in New Zealand and Australia, leads me to see this as an extremely important contribution to imperial history, not only in the development of the USA as a continental empire, but to broader understandings of settler colonies and the situation of indigenous peoples. This book deserves to be widely read by historians of empire and its ideas explored in other contexts and empires.
Miller’s case is that the Doctrine of Discovery has ten essential components (but we need to note that these components manifest themselves in different ways in different places, largely but not exclusively because of colonial and imperial conditions on the ground)
1. European first ‘discovery’, that is the first European state to ‘discover’ a new land has specific ‘rights’;
2. Occupancy and possession, but these ‘rights’ are not in perpetuity and the ‘new land’ must be settled and occupied in order for those ‘rights’ to be actualised;
3. Part of that actualisation involves pre-emption or the sole right to buy land from the previous and existing native peoples as inhabitants;
4. These native peoples retain native title rights but on the basis of occupancy only, while underlying title as a form of constrained fee rather than fee simple is held by the settler (European) state;
5. Meaning that native title involves only limited sovereign and commercial rights restricted to relations with the (European) settler state;
6. This settler state extends its claims derived from occupancy and possession through the principle of contiguity so it is not only settled land where settlers hold title but also to surrounding land and resources, a principle extended by the claim that occupancy and possession of a river mouth granted ownership of that entire river catchment;
7. This title was further enhanced because the principle to terra nullius held that the land was, in many cases, unoccupied and therefore not owned (empty) if, in the view of these European settlers, the land was not being ‘properly used’ (that is, cultivated and farmed);
8. These claims were further underpinned by the association of ‘civilisation’ with Christianity meaning that all non-Christian peoples were deemed not to have the same rights to land, sovereignty and self-determination;
9. Meaning that claiming Discovery rights involved ‘civilising’ indigenous peoples, but more importantly that in acting on basis of God’s mission Europeans brought and should impose civilisation;
10. Which if resisted could be imposed by conquest which also had the advantage of negating indigenous people’s occupancy rights and therefore freeing title for settlers (and as an aside, herein lies the contemporary discussions about ‘just war’).
Crucially for Miller, this Doctrine is not historical (as in of the past but no longer existing) but pervasive in US law.
The book then is a detailed and close analysis of late colonial and early republican law and practice, focussing on the early Republic and with a detailed exploration of the mission to claim what became the Oregon territory (now Washington, Oregon & Idaho) as part of the USA. In doing so Miller explores not only the understanding of the Doctrine of Discovery in Thomas Jefferson’s work before , during and after his term as President but also in Lewis & Clark’s expedition under Jefferson’s direction. Not content with this issue in the USA Miller shows the significance of the Doctrine in Spanish, French and British (which he continually labels English) claims to parts of North America. Essential to the argument is that there was explicit and knowing invocation of Discovery as a doctrine and as legal principle, and that this was widely and popularly understood and known.
As is the case with many legal arguments, the initial case is built by accumulation, which in the early stages means a tendency to add legislation, treaty, case law and public discussions and debates one on top of the other. Once he gets into evidence drawn from the 1820s and onwards the case is constructed by representative example, and when he moves on to show the continuing presence of Discovery in US law in the current era (i.e., since the 1950s) it become argument by illustrative example.
Miller concludes with a brief outline of the continuing presence of Discovery in US law and with a really useful outline of its impact on and presence in US ‘Indian’ law and policies. He also proposes an approach to addressing and dealing with this presence which is incremental (and in political terms ‘realistic’/evolutionary rather than revolutionary); in this sense his approach may help develop a better policy approach but does not seem to me to address the fundamental colonial antagonism that lies at the heart of settler colonies and states.
More generally, in terms of US history the book presents two major historiographical challenges. The first to the status of the Lewis & Clark expedition where there is a current tendency to downplay its significance through the use of an argument that occupation would have happened anyway. Miller’s case is that the US claim against Britain to the Oregon Territory (and therefore before Mexican-American War to a Pacific coastal presence) is based on Lewis & Clark’s claims along with initial discovery of the Columbia River (a weak claim because although a US citizen Robert Gray was not an agent of the Government) and occupancy by US citizen fur trappers. The second challenge is to the novelty of Manifest Destiny as a mid-19th century doctrine. Instead, Miller convincingly argues that ‘Manifest Destiny’ is a label for already existing practice and law.
It is, to my mind at least, this second challenge that is the really important one in that is reinforces his point that exploring the Doctrine of Discovery has significance well beyond the settlement of the Oregon Territory. In this, however, he does not go far enough (although his evidence is centred on Lewis & Clark and Jefferson); the case he is making is, as he suggests, an example of a wider significance in US settler and colonisation marking the continental empire and colonisation of an already occupied and owned land. The evidence also has profound significance in other colonies of settlement. On the basis of my previous work in a job dealing with the legal basis of settlement and land title in Aotearoa/New Zealand I can recognise close parallels between the application of the Doctrine of Discovery in the USA in the lands that during the 19th century became a British settler colony now known as New Zealand, yet there is little systematic work that explores the ten aspects of Discovery in that context.
I am sure readers with a more nuanced and sophisticated grasp of US history and especially the colonisation of indigenous territory and peoples will read this differently and may be likely to reach different conclusions. My knowledge of British imperial and colonial action, mainly in New Zealand and Australia, leads me to see this as an extremely important contribution to imperial history, not only in the development of the USA as a continental empire, but to broader understandings of settler colonies and the situation of indigenous peoples. This book deserves to be widely read by historians of empire and its ideas explored in other contexts and empires.
January 27, 2019
The material can be a bit repetitive and Miller does not get the concepts behind the "Discovery Doctrine" totally right but the information about Jefferson's imperial ambitions, and his use of Lewis & Clark's expedition to further those aims is very important.
March 11, 2016
the legal meaning of "Discovery" : what every student of American history should have learned but hasn't.
August 13, 2020
Richard J Miller, Lewis & Clark Law School Professor, citizen of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, and chief justice of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde in Oregon, has written a consummate book. Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, and Manifest Destiny deserves to be read by every student, and by every citizen, given its extraordinary illumination of 600 years of "international law" that justified conquering non-European, non-white, non-Christian human societies worldwide.
Miller's specialty is the "intl law" underpinning the Doctrine of Discovery (I put intl law in quotes because when it was used over most of the past 600 years it was frequently referred to as the European Christian White man's law, including by Thomas Jefferson).
Miller's book details the 10 elements comprising Discovery:
1. First discovery. The first European country to “discover” new lands unknown to other Europeans gained property and sovereign rights over the lands....
2. Actual occupancy and current possession. To fully establish a “first discovery” claim and turn it into a complete title, a European country had to actually occupy and possess newly found lands....
3. Preemption/European title. The discovering European country gained the power of preemption, the sole right to buy the land from the native people....
4. Indian title. After first discovery, Indian Nations and the indigenous peoples were considered by European and American legal systems to have lost the full property rights and ownership of their lands. They only retained rights to occupy and use their land....
5. Tribal limited sovereign and commercial rights. After first discovery, Indian Nations and native peoples were also considered to have lost some of their inherent sovereign powers....
6. Contiguity. This element provided that Europeans had a Discovery claim to a reasonable and significant amount of land contiguous to and surrounding their settlements and the lands that they actually possessed in the New World….
7. Terra nullius. ...Euro-Americans often considered lands that were actually owned, occupied, and being actively utilized by indigenous people to be “vacant” and available for Discovery claims if they were not being “properly used” according to European and American law and culture.
8. Christianity. ...Under Discovery, non-Christian people were not deemed to have the same rights to land, sovereignty, and self-determination as Christians….
9. Civilization. ...Euro-Americans thought that God had directed them to bring civilized ways and education and religion to indigenous peoples and often to exercise paternalism and guardianship powers over them.
10. Conquest. ...It can mean a military victory. “Conquest” was also used as a “term of art,” a word with a special meaning, when it was used as an element of Discovery.
What an extraordinary book!
Miller's specialty is the "intl law" underpinning the Doctrine of Discovery (I put intl law in quotes because when it was used over most of the past 600 years it was frequently referred to as the European Christian White man's law, including by Thomas Jefferson).
Miller's book details the 10 elements comprising Discovery:
1. First discovery. The first European country to “discover” new lands unknown to other Europeans gained property and sovereign rights over the lands....
2. Actual occupancy and current possession. To fully establish a “first discovery” claim and turn it into a complete title, a European country had to actually occupy and possess newly found lands....
3. Preemption/European title. The discovering European country gained the power of preemption, the sole right to buy the land from the native people....
4. Indian title. After first discovery, Indian Nations and the indigenous peoples were considered by European and American legal systems to have lost the full property rights and ownership of their lands. They only retained rights to occupy and use their land....
5. Tribal limited sovereign and commercial rights. After first discovery, Indian Nations and native peoples were also considered to have lost some of their inherent sovereign powers....
6. Contiguity. This element provided that Europeans had a Discovery claim to a reasonable and significant amount of land contiguous to and surrounding their settlements and the lands that they actually possessed in the New World….
7. Terra nullius. ...Euro-Americans often considered lands that were actually owned, occupied, and being actively utilized by indigenous people to be “vacant” and available for Discovery claims if they were not being “properly used” according to European and American law and culture.
8. Christianity. ...Under Discovery, non-Christian people were not deemed to have the same rights to land, sovereignty, and self-determination as Christians….
9. Civilization. ...Euro-Americans thought that God had directed them to bring civilized ways and education and religion to indigenous peoples and often to exercise paternalism and guardianship powers over them.
10. Conquest. ...It can mean a military victory. “Conquest” was also used as a “term of art,” a word with a special meaning, when it was used as an element of Discovery.
What an extraordinary book!
September 17, 2020
Just hard to read. If you’re curious at all about rhetoric on the left arguing that the history of America is always full of contradiction and difficulty, then this would be a good place to start. Miller definitively shows how arbitrary many of the foundational claims, made by Europeans, to land in the Americas were/are. They essentially rolled up to the “new world” and claimed land on the basis of their own supposed superiority. That superiority, initially underwritten by the Vatican for Spain and Portugal (google the Treaty of Tordesillas) often made supposed Christian national identity the primary warrant for the argument of superiority over Native Americans. A peculiar kind of imperial Christianity, but one widespread across European Catholic and Protestant nations. There is ample historical and even legal evidence documenting the fraudulent and racist nature or these specious arguments for innate European superiority, which you can find in this book.
These ludicrous claims to land, which provided justification for conquest and coercive seizure of Native lands, were confirmed and reinscribed in US federal policy towards Native Americans in the 1823 Supreme Court case, Johnson v. M’Intosh. Chief Justice Marshall essentially conceded that the US’ claim to Indian land was often false or nonexistent, but agreed that Americans had an inherently more compelling claim to those lands by virtue of their civilization, and thus he upheld this rapacious policy. These arguments still technically, legally form the foundation to many American claims to land in the control of the USA.
Miller’s solution is middle of the road. He basically operates from within American judicial and educational systems (he is a lawyer and legal scholar of Indian Law) and thus works with the premise that the US will never consciously delegitimize its own claims to land. So he is hesitant to go right for the jugular. Instead, he (writing in 2008), called for increased dialogue between Congress and Native Americans on how to lessen the burden of this long history of ongoing colonialism. That’s for sure an admirable step, though I think we ought to have the courage to reckon with the contingency of our national and continental/geographic past and its dark realities. He has that courage, but seems nervous about taking it to the Supreme Court.
Note on his argument: he describes what he calls the “Doctrine of Discovery” and demonstrates its pervasiveness in American history. He also demonstrates how it influenced ideas of Manifest Destiny. However, he probably overdetermines the Doctrine of Discovery’s role in justifying US land claims (there were other arguments, not much better, being made than the kind of basically arbitrary claims to superiority, finders’ keepers, and might makes right at the heart of Discovery).
These ludicrous claims to land, which provided justification for conquest and coercive seizure of Native lands, were confirmed and reinscribed in US federal policy towards Native Americans in the 1823 Supreme Court case, Johnson v. M’Intosh. Chief Justice Marshall essentially conceded that the US’ claim to Indian land was often false or nonexistent, but agreed that Americans had an inherently more compelling claim to those lands by virtue of their civilization, and thus he upheld this rapacious policy. These arguments still technically, legally form the foundation to many American claims to land in the control of the USA.
Miller’s solution is middle of the road. He basically operates from within American judicial and educational systems (he is a lawyer and legal scholar of Indian Law) and thus works with the premise that the US will never consciously delegitimize its own claims to land. So he is hesitant to go right for the jugular. Instead, he (writing in 2008), called for increased dialogue between Congress and Native Americans on how to lessen the burden of this long history of ongoing colonialism. That’s for sure an admirable step, though I think we ought to have the courage to reckon with the contingency of our national and continental/geographic past and its dark realities. He has that courage, but seems nervous about taking it to the Supreme Court.
Note on his argument: he describes what he calls the “Doctrine of Discovery” and demonstrates its pervasiveness in American history. He also demonstrates how it influenced ideas of Manifest Destiny. However, he probably overdetermines the Doctrine of Discovery’s role in justifying US land claims (there were other arguments, not much better, being made than the kind of basically arbitrary claims to superiority, finders’ keepers, and might makes right at the heart of Discovery).
November 20, 2023
An important and relevant book. Although less than 200 pages, this groundbreaking book is a difficult read—not for everyone—partly because of the continual betrayal of justice for the indigenous peoples of the Americas, but more particularly because this is a legal history that gets down into the minute specifics of laws and legal theories. Miller’s legal research goes all the way back to medieval times and traces the Doctrine of Discovery through Papal bulls and European rituals of Discovery that automatically granted them sovereignty rights over vast territories without consideration of the inhabitants. He continues through the U.S. concept of Manifest Destiny in the 1800s and right up to present day Supreme Court decisions. In his introduction, Miller states of the Discovery Doctrine: “This legal principle was created and justified by the religious and ethnocentric ideas of European and Caucasian superiority over the other cultures, religions, and races of the world.”
Miller is Native American and a professor at the Lewis and Clark Law School in Oregon. His legal scholarship leads him to numerous judgements in his final chapter, “Conclusions”: “The ultimate question then, is whether this relic of colonialism and feudalism, and racial, religious, and cultural domination should be relegated to the dustbin of history.” He suggests laws that the US Congress could pass that would improve the lives and legal standing of America’s indigenous peoples. Native Americans and anyone interested in the history of indigenous peoples should find this book indispensable.
“In 1807 President [Thomas] Jefferson continued to hold these genocidal views. When he learned that some tribes were preparing for war because the United states and its citizens continued to encroach on tribal lands, he said that ‘if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or driven beyond the Mississippi…we shall destroy all of them.’” p. 93
Miller is Native American and a professor at the Lewis and Clark Law School in Oregon. His legal scholarship leads him to numerous judgements in his final chapter, “Conclusions”: “The ultimate question then, is whether this relic of colonialism and feudalism, and racial, religious, and cultural domination should be relegated to the dustbin of history.” He suggests laws that the US Congress could pass that would improve the lives and legal standing of America’s indigenous peoples. Native Americans and anyone interested in the history of indigenous peoples should find this book indispensable.
“In 1807 President [Thomas] Jefferson continued to hold these genocidal views. When he learned that some tribes were preparing for war because the United states and its citizens continued to encroach on tribal lands, he said that ‘if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or driven beyond the Mississippi…we shall destroy all of them.’” p. 93
January 14, 2021
I wish I could recommend this book, because the author clearly invested a great deal of careful research into this. Unfortunately, the author's interpretations at the beginning of the book make me question the validity as a whole.
I am not very familiar with late 18th and early 19th century US, so I cannot comment on the heart of the book. However, I am more familiar with medieval-through-1600 ideologies of empire, so I will comment on the Introduction and Chapter 1 .
Miller traces the history of the Doctrine of Discovery, and to his credit on pages 3-5 he clearly defines 10 components of the Doctrine:
1. Discovery
2. Possession
3. Preemption
4. Loss of Indian title
5. Limited sovereignty and commercial rights
6. Contiguity
7. Terra nullius
8. Christianity
9. Civilization
10. Conquest
The issue is that the author frequently presents evidence that does not actually support his thesis regarding the Doctrine of Discovery.
For example, "the Doctrine has been traced as far back as medieval times and the Crusades to recover the Holy Lands in 1096 -1271" (p. 12). Obviously, this is categorically NOT the doctrine of discovery since nobody was discovering the Holy Land, so I am not sure how this is particularly representative of Discovery.
The author continues that "the European and Church development of the ideas behind Discovery continued most significantly in the early 1400s in a controversy between Poland and the Teutonic Knights to control non-Christian Lithuania" (p. 12). Once again, this is categorically NOT the doctrine of discovery because there is no discovery of the Baltics. I was originally willing to excuse this because the author described the broader "ideas behind Discovery", but then the author continues.
"The Council of Constance in 1414 had now placed a formal definition on the Christian Doctrine of Discovery,"(p. 13). I notice the author provides no citation, because none exists; the Council in fact provided no resolution to the Polish-Teutonic-Lithuanian issue. I haven't the slightest idea where the author is finding a "formal definition" of Discovery in the Council of Constance, which specifically avoided providing a definitive ruling on the issue and focused more on Jan Huss.
The author moves forward to Iberia, writing that the Doctrine of Discovery had solidified by 1493 (p. 13). My complaint, once again, is that the late 15th-century agreements between Spain, Portugal, and the Pope are categorically NOT the Doctrine of Discovery. Based on the author's own definition, Discovery states that "the first European country to "discover" new lands unknown to other Europeans gained property and sovereign rights over the lands," (p. 3). Documents like Inter Caetera, Tordesillas, etc. reserved the lands to Spain and Portugal, respectively, regardless of which Europeans actually stumbled upon it first. Other elements - such as terra nullius and loss of Indian title - were also not part of the early modern Iberian ideology.
The author notes that a debate ensued, and introduces us to de Victoria: "Into this dispute stepped the priest Franciscus de Victoria. Victoria was the King's lead advisor . . . " (p. 16). The remaining section about Spain and Portugal focuses on de Victoria. To be charitable, I could describe this as misleading. The author completely neglects other Iberian jurists such as Bartolomé de las Casas, Domingo de Soto, Serafim de Freita, Diego Covarrubias y Leyva, or Fernando Vázquez de Menchaca.
The author then engages in an analysis of De Victoria's writings, without actually quoting them in the text. I am not sure on what basis the author writes that "the legal regime envisioned by de Victoria was just as destructive to native sovereignty and property interests . . .[as] the earlier definition of Spain's authority . . . ", nor why the author fails to mention the practical effects of the Salamancan School as a whole - abolition of Indian slavery, the papal bull Sublimus Deus in 1537 effectively revoking Inter Caetera, the 1542 Nuevas Leyes, or even the abolition of the Requirimiento.
On that note, the author concludes the Iberian section with "an interesting examle of Spanish natural law rights at work in the New World was demonstrated by the . . . . Requirimiento," (p. 17). The author is factually wrong here. The Requirimiento was created in 1513 before the development of the Salamancan natural law system, and was abolished in the wake of the Salamancan reforms.
While I am not as familiar with early US history, even here some evidence is rather spurious. For example, the author argues that the Commerce Clause "unambiguously granted the Doctrine of Discovery powers to Congress," which seems rather questionable. The Commerce Clause itself includes Indian Tribes together with both the States (dependent on the federal government) and also foreign nations (independent of the federal government), so it is not immediately obvious that the Constitution fulfills Miller's definition. In fact, even subsequent court cases are inconsistent.
Overall, this book suffers from several issues:
1. Lack of historical analysis, and weak evidence.
2. Does not adequately engage with primary sources in-text.
3. To his credit, the author has outlined clear criteria for the Doctrine; unfortunately, the author then projects the Doctrine onto legal ideologies that do not meet this definition.
4. In general, the author collapses history by focusing on singular voices rather than discourse, and by treating Discovery as something that is ultimately a transhistorical, transcultural phenomenon.
I commend the author for his work, but I wish this had been co-written with a historian, or perhaps had an editor with a sharper eye.
Sources:
Christiansen, Eric - "The Northern Crusades."
van Deusen, Nancy - "Global Indios: The Indigenous Struggle for Justice in Sixteenth-Century Spain."
Fisher, Andrew and O'Hara, A Matthew - "Imperial Subjects: Race and Identity in Colonial Latin America."
Pagden, Anthony - "Lords of All the World: Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain and France c. 1500 - 1800."
I am not very familiar with late 18th and early 19th century US, so I cannot comment on the heart of the book. However, I am more familiar with medieval-through-1600 ideologies of empire, so I will comment on the Introduction and Chapter 1 .
Miller traces the history of the Doctrine of Discovery, and to his credit on pages 3-5 he clearly defines 10 components of the Doctrine:
1. Discovery
2. Possession
3. Preemption
4. Loss of Indian title
5. Limited sovereignty and commercial rights
6. Contiguity
7. Terra nullius
8. Christianity
9. Civilization
10. Conquest
The issue is that the author frequently presents evidence that does not actually support his thesis regarding the Doctrine of Discovery.
For example, "the Doctrine has been traced as far back as medieval times and the Crusades to recover the Holy Lands in 1096 -1271" (p. 12). Obviously, this is categorically NOT the doctrine of discovery since nobody was discovering the Holy Land, so I am not sure how this is particularly representative of Discovery.
The author continues that "the European and Church development of the ideas behind Discovery continued most significantly in the early 1400s in a controversy between Poland and the Teutonic Knights to control non-Christian Lithuania" (p. 12). Once again, this is categorically NOT the doctrine of discovery because there is no discovery of the Baltics. I was originally willing to excuse this because the author described the broader "ideas behind Discovery", but then the author continues.
"The Council of Constance in 1414 had now placed a formal definition on the Christian Doctrine of Discovery,"(p. 13). I notice the author provides no citation, because none exists; the Council in fact provided no resolution to the Polish-Teutonic-Lithuanian issue. I haven't the slightest idea where the author is finding a "formal definition" of Discovery in the Council of Constance, which specifically avoided providing a definitive ruling on the issue and focused more on Jan Huss.
The author moves forward to Iberia, writing that the Doctrine of Discovery had solidified by 1493 (p. 13). My complaint, once again, is that the late 15th-century agreements between Spain, Portugal, and the Pope are categorically NOT the Doctrine of Discovery. Based on the author's own definition, Discovery states that "the first European country to "discover" new lands unknown to other Europeans gained property and sovereign rights over the lands," (p. 3). Documents like Inter Caetera, Tordesillas, etc. reserved the lands to Spain and Portugal, respectively, regardless of which Europeans actually stumbled upon it first. Other elements - such as terra nullius and loss of Indian title - were also not part of the early modern Iberian ideology.
The author notes that a debate ensued, and introduces us to de Victoria: "Into this dispute stepped the priest Franciscus de Victoria. Victoria was the King's lead advisor . . . " (p. 16). The remaining section about Spain and Portugal focuses on de Victoria. To be charitable, I could describe this as misleading. The author completely neglects other Iberian jurists such as Bartolomé de las Casas, Domingo de Soto, Serafim de Freita, Diego Covarrubias y Leyva, or Fernando Vázquez de Menchaca.
The author then engages in an analysis of De Victoria's writings, without actually quoting them in the text. I am not sure on what basis the author writes that "the legal regime envisioned by de Victoria was just as destructive to native sovereignty and property interests . . .[as] the earlier definition of Spain's authority . . . ", nor why the author fails to mention the practical effects of the Salamancan School as a whole - abolition of Indian slavery, the papal bull Sublimus Deus in 1537 effectively revoking Inter Caetera, the 1542 Nuevas Leyes, or even the abolition of the Requirimiento.
On that note, the author concludes the Iberian section with "an interesting examle of Spanish natural law rights at work in the New World was demonstrated by the . . . . Requirimiento," (p. 17). The author is factually wrong here. The Requirimiento was created in 1513 before the development of the Salamancan natural law system, and was abolished in the wake of the Salamancan reforms.
While I am not as familiar with early US history, even here some evidence is rather spurious. For example, the author argues that the Commerce Clause "unambiguously granted the Doctrine of Discovery powers to Congress," which seems rather questionable. The Commerce Clause itself includes Indian Tribes together with both the States (dependent on the federal government) and also foreign nations (independent of the federal government), so it is not immediately obvious that the Constitution fulfills Miller's definition. In fact, even subsequent court cases are inconsistent.
Overall, this book suffers from several issues:
1. Lack of historical analysis, and weak evidence.
2. Does not adequately engage with primary sources in-text.
3. To his credit, the author has outlined clear criteria for the Doctrine; unfortunately, the author then projects the Doctrine onto legal ideologies that do not meet this definition.
4. In general, the author collapses history by focusing on singular voices rather than discourse, and by treating Discovery as something that is ultimately a transhistorical, transcultural phenomenon.
I commend the author for his work, but I wish this had been co-written with a historian, or perhaps had an editor with a sharper eye.
Sources:
Christiansen, Eric - "The Northern Crusades."
van Deusen, Nancy - "Global Indios: The Indigenous Struggle for Justice in Sixteenth-Century Spain."
Fisher, Andrew and O'Hara, A Matthew - "Imperial Subjects: Race and Identity in Colonial Latin America."
Pagden, Anthony - "Lords of All the World: Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain and France c. 1500 - 1800."
March 23, 2023
Very good summary of the origin and use of the doctrine of discovery (and the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny) and its impact on all Native tribes and individuals. The only negative is that it can seem rather repetitive, even if developmental into even worse actions beyond any valid euro-centric interpretation of the doctrine of discovery. Note: De Santis would say this is a very, very "woke" book, which means it is uncomfortable (previously unknown and untaught) history, truth, and VERY important information about the injustice(s) done by the citizens and governments of the European colonial nations (Spain, Portugal, France, England) and their immigrant descendents in North & South America, from 1492 through today, including the US Supreme Court.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews