Competing Views of Colonial Violence in 1825

I find this article interesting in that it depicts colonial violence from two different perspectives. The account given in the Cornwall Gazette adopts a view which seeks to justify the acts of the colonizers, while the pamphlet argues against the need for violent action. Overall, its a discourse between two unreliable narrators, both trying to depict the events in Trelawny in a light that supports their own views or interests. The pamphlet clearly depicts a sentimentalist view, as is evident by its frequent reference to christian ideologies as well as the assertion that the colonies are humane endeavors. Meanwhile, the excerpt from the Gazette displays a capitalistic view of events, justifying the skirmish as a necessary means to reclaim lost property. 

I would argue that this article gives some insight into the way the Haitian revolt changed the view of colonization and slavery in the eyes of English citizens. Fear of the colonized's supposed propensity for violence was used as justification for use of militaristic force in the colonies, which in turn fueled the sentimentalist movement. In either case, the victims of colonization are not given autonomy, which is something we've encountered in Benito Cereno as well. Melville's text may well have been an attempt to critique the sentimentalist point of view, suggesting that while they claim noble motives, their view of events is just as cloudy and flawed as Amasa Delano's.