Reposting this question because I got no response when I asked before.
The narrative of European interaction with the Americas (at least the predominant one that I've heard) has always been along the lines of "Columbus discovers the new world, Europeans conquer, set up colonies, begin converting the native peoples and extracting wealth, and eventually new countries emerge." That's obviously a gross oversimplification, but those are the major points I always seem to hear.
My thought is that someone, at some point, must have actually decided that they should conquer and colonize the Americas. But did anyone actually propose other approaches? Was there anyone who thought simple trade or conversion would be the appropriate way of dealing with these new-found people? Did someone propose leaving them alone or doing something altogether different?
Finally, who was it who decided that conquest and colonization were the approaches to take? Was there an argument about this? Was it supported by one of the European monarchs or just done on one individual's actions? Was it an abrupt decision or was it something done without a single decisive moment, more piecemeal over time maybe?
My original thoughts about this were mainly around Spain's actions in Mexico/the Caribbean/the Andes, but I'd be happy to hear about any and all of the European powers in the Americas.
Different powers had different approaches. Many had private companies controlling the process. The Dutch approach was specifically about trade, was run by the Dutch West Indies Corporation, but decided that it would be necessary to develop settlements to prevent the French and English from over running them in New Netherlands. But even then the settlements were smaller than what the English would develop. They just were not into colonization for settlement.
The English had private companies using the model of Ireland plantation systems they had developed in the 16th century. The Virginia Company had lots of experience to draw from in setting up Virginia before a single ship left port. The French had significant problems getting people to settle and often had less people in their North American colonies. Thus the French specifically tried to ally them self with the Indians more than any one else because they needed the Indians to help off set the population of the English colonies. I have read that the English outnumbered the French by 10 to 1 in North America. In order to control so much territory the French used the alliances to hold off the English and also dominate the fur trade for over 100 years.
Spain and Portugal were all about the money and used both Crown and private ventures. (Recall that Columbus was sent by a King.) Spain was forced across the oceans by virtue of fighting a war with Portugal over African trade. The two signed a treaty in 1480 dictating Spain to have the Canaray Islands and all areas of the sea west of the Azores whereas Portugal got Africa and the South Atlantic. Spain had no issue with taking a hard line with colonies as they did so with the Moors already. Like the English, they had experience with taming people. Portugal had Brazil (discovered by accident but secured thanks to the Pope moving the 1480 dividing line ~ 300 miles west) where they were heavily depended on slaves and Indians to work sugar plantations. It was pretty bad in Brazil for the endogenous people under the Portuguese but the same could be said for the Spanish colonies. Many of the endogenous people died.
Once things got rolling it was nearly impossible for these countries to stop people from going off and seeking fame and fortune. Privateers developed and people started their own settlements independent of the European authorities. Pirates even had their own colonies. Tortuga and Jamaica were famous examples.
In terms of the treatment of the natives there were a few people who wanted to simply trade and respect the locals. One was Francisco de Vitoria of Spain. He argued that the natives had existing laws and should be respected by international law. Thus no one had a right to conquer them and peaceful trade should be the route Europeans should take.
Of course the imperialists had different ideas.
See Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty, Vol 1 Part 1, Chapter 1 Europe at the Dawn of the Modern Era. This is freely available http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/Conceived%20in%20Liberty_Vol_2.pdf
Vague history lesson ahoy, from law school of all places:
In the beginning, Portugal conquers part of Africa. Spain sponsors Colombus, in part because Africa was taken by Portugal and Spain was jealous. When Colombus comes back, Portugal throws a hissy fit and a treaty is signed with Spain about how to divide the new lands.
I mention the above because the Vatican was the mediator. In fact, Spain had to ask the Vatican permission to claim the land, and they actually had to build a legal/religious justification to give themselves permission to conquer the land and spread religion. the Inter caetera papal bull is dated 4 May 1493, and Dudum siquidem on 26 September 1493, which vested the sovereignty of the territories discovered and to be discovered.
The legal justification: because the whole Earth belongs to God, and the Pope is his representative on Earth, its up to the Pope to dole out land and give Spain permission to administrate the lands they discover. It was also an explicit command to Spain to chritianize the savages.
Open-minded catholic priests and philosophers and other European powers thought that was kinda bullshit. There were some debates among the intellectuals about the morality of it all. But I guess that sweet American gold started coming, and everyone fell in line.
Notice they didnt try this bullshit with the Muslims, because they were scary and they won the Crusades. Trade option the Muslims was the way to go. The natives in America were easier to deal with and conquer, so their opinions didnt count. War for the natives it is.
To sum up, christianize the savages was very much the justification at first. Colonization and conquering was just the tools to spread Jesus. (On paper. Even back then, people were aware its was really just about the money.)