Why is the New World named “America,” after Amerigo Vespucci, and not after Columbus who discovered it?

“The Four Voyages” and “Mundus Novus” were letters written by Vespucci describing his explorations in the New World. They were published in Florence, and republished in other countries including France and Germany.  

The popularity of the letters was due to Vespucci’s insistence that the newly discovered lands were a new continent… These letters were so widely read that as a consequence Vespucci emerged as a major figure in sixteenth-century exploration and discovery, and for more than a generation his claims overshadowed the achievements of Columbus. [1] 

In 1506, German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller published the letters under the name, The Cosmography. The book included a world map with the New World named “America.” This was because he was convinced Vespucci was the one who discovered it. Waldseemüller wrote:

I do not see why anyone would rightly forbid calling it (after the discoverer Americus [sic]...) [2]

Eventually, Waldseemüller and his colleagues accumulated more information from learning about the Spanish and Portuguese discoveries. They revised the earlier misconceptions including the fact “that the lands discovered by Columbus and those reported by Vespucci were the same.” [3] Unfortunately, Waldseemüller erroneously called Columbus a “Spaniard” and though he removed the name “America” (from other geographical works he later published), the name “America” stuck and replaced the name of the Indies. 

How was the relationship between Columbus and Vespucci?

Columbus made a total of four voyages. He was the first European to reach and discover Central America, South America and the Caribbean. He reached the continent first (in 1498), one year before Vespucci did. However, Vespucci claimed in his letters he was there a year before Columbus. Primary source Bartolome de las Casas believed Vespucci was in bad faith, lying, “usurping the glory and honor due to Columbus alone… and deliberately sought to steal the admiral’s glory.” He complained that the New World was unfairly named after Vespucci, that it should have been after Columbus instead. [4] Nevertheless, there was never animosity between Columbus and Vespucci. The claim of reaching the continent a year before Columbus by Vespucci was one of a few errors in the text that eventually got fixed. As for the renaming of the continent, that was out of the control of Columbus since he died as Waldseemüller was about to use the name “America” in his work.

It is important to understand that Vespucci’s initial voyage to the continent was not one he made by himself as the leading explorer. He was there as part of the crew, probably serving as an astronomical observer. Instead, the expedition was led by Alonso de Ojeda in 1499 to 1500 who reached the continent because he had seen Columbus’ map. [5] 

What is the letter Columbus is giving to Vespucci in the image above?

As mentioned before, Columbus knew Vespucci. He even mentions him in two private short letters Columbus wrote to his son Diego in 1506, before he died. 

ChatGTP vs History:

For some strange reason ChatGTP says that in the first letter “Columbus complains that Vespucci had risen in royal favor while he (Columbus) had been neglected,” and “Columbus feels Vespucci advanced because of politics and luck, not achievement.” In the second letter, according to the chat, Columbus says that Vespucci “Tried to take credit for discoveries that were not his… Was now being treated as an authority on navigation… Columbus also warns Diego not to trust Vespucci fully and implies that Vespucci benefited from Columbus’s downfall.”

 

None of the above is true. In fact, it is pure fantasy.

In the real first letter Columbus wrote, he described Vespucci as a very good man, always looking to please him and do anything that he could to help. Columbus even laments for Vespucci by saying, “Fortune has been against him like it has been for many others: his efforts have not benefited him as much as reason demands.” [6] Vespucci personally carried that letter to Columbus’ son, Diego as we can see in the image of this post. As for the second letter, Columbus says he was writing the letter with Vespucci by his side.

What was Vespucci's contribution to history? 

Vespucci was the first person to realize the Indies was a different continent and not part of Asia. Vespucci called it the fourth part of the world; the other three being Europe, Africa and Asia. He wrote:

… for in those southern parts I have found a continent more densely peopled and abounding in animals than our Europe or Asia or Africa. Mundus Novus, p. 1.

… it is evident that we sailed over a fourth part of the world… Mundus Novus, p. 11.

Vespucci’s enthusiasts use this as their defense for the New World being “correctly” named America and not Columbia or Columbus. But if we were going to follow Waldseemüller’s logic, it should have been named after their discoverer. 

Life sometimes is not fair. Regardless, many places are still named after Columbus, including capitals, cities, towns, companies, islands, etc., and even a country.

Ironically, the greatest accomplishment by Amerigo Vespucci is the realization that Columbus’ discoveries were one of the greatest events in history! The New World is now in the maps because of Columbus.

---------------------------------------

Footnotes:

1. The Christopher Columbus Encyclopedia. Vol. I, p.18.

2. Ibid p.19.

3. Ibid p. 21.

4. History of the Indies by Las Casas, Book One, Ch. 163, pp. 61-62.

5. Ibid.

6. Colección de los Viajes y Descubrimientos by Martín Fernández de Navarrette, p. 351. Translation into English made by me. 

Sources:

1. The First Four Voyages of Amerigo Vespucci. Translated by Stradanus. London. 1893.

2. Mundus Novus by Amerigo Vespucci - Letter to Lorenzo Pietro Di Medici. Translated by George Tyler Northup. Princeton University Press. 1916.

3. America, Naming of, pp. 18-21. The Christopher Columbus Encyclopedia. Volume I. Simon & Schuster. 1992.

4. Colección de los Viajes y Descubrimientos que Hicieron por Mar los Españoles Desde Fines del Siglo XV by Martín Fernández de Navarrette. Tomo I. 1825.

#amerigovespucci #mundusnovus #america #diegocolumbus #chatgtp #martinwaldseemüller #columbus

“Christopher Columbus, The Discoverer of America” by William Dieffenbach Book Review

Christopher Columbus, The Discoverer of America is a fast-paced, swashbuckling, action-packed book written by William Dieffenbach. Dieffenbach, a neurodivergent and autistic young author, has written three other books, but this title marks his first published work. It was released in December 2025, when he was just 18 years old—an impressive achievement for such a young writer.

The book is a retelling of the life and adventures of Christopher Columbus, blending historical events with artistic license and well-known Columbian legends. These include popular stories such as Columbus attempting to prove that the Earth was not flat and the famous tale of the egg.

Throughout the story, a young Christopher Columbus travels as a sailor and explorer, learning the stories and legends of heroes from many cultures and lands he encounters. These include figures such as Robin Hood, Sinbad, Joan of Arc, Sigurd, and others.

Action is constant, as Columbus finds himself battling pirates, corsairs, mercenaries, and assassins, all while striving to help those in need. This emphasis on adventure and heroism keeps the story engaging and accessible for younger readers.

The book also features beautiful illustrations that enhance the storytelling experience. At 172 pages, it is suitable for readers ages 5 to 18—unless, like me, you are a lifelong fan of Christopher Columbus, in which case it can be enjoyed at any age.

Here is the link to purchase the book: Amazon

#austism #neurodivergent #brilliant #robinhood #sinbad #joanofarc #sigurd #pirates #corsairs #legends

"Get Gold, Humanely If Possible, But At All Hazards- Get Gold”

 

Did King Ferdinand tell Christopher Columbus to “Get gold, humanely if possible, but at all hazards-get gold”?

The short answer to the question is in Chapter 19 of my book, “Christopher Columbus The Hero 2”:

Revisionists are becoming more creative in the things they incorrectly attribute to Columbus. One of the new ones is that King Ferdinand wrote a letter to Columbus on June 6, 1511, saying, ‘Get gold, humanely if possible, but at all hazards-get gold.’ This quote is in several articles on the web, even in a school textbook. But the first problem we have is that Columbus died in 1506. The other problem is that the king did not say such a thing. Instead, the quote was a comment made by Sir Arthur Helps in 1856. It has nothing to do with Columbus. [1]

In addition, Sir Arthur Helps wrote a biography on Columbus where he portrayed him as a hero. His book is titled “The Life of Columbus.”

Sir Arthur’s “Get gold comment” comment came from another book he wrote [2]. In it, he quoted a letter King Ferdinand wrote to Diego Columbus (Columbus’ son) in 1511 by saying:

The conversion of the Indians is the principal foundation of the conquest, that which principally ought to be attended to. So act that the Indians there ( in Trinidad ) may increase, and not diminish, as in Hispaniola.

That’s the actual quote. Then Sir Arthur proceeded to comment the following:

This is a most unsatisfactory and vacillating letter, which it is not harsh to construe shortly in this way: ‘Get gold, humanely if you can, but at all hazards get gold, and here are facilities for you.’ The king tries to wash his hands of the ill consequences of this permission in a letter of the next month, in which he says, ‘Take care that our conscience be not burdened, and that the importation of Indians be without damage to them and to our people ...’  [3]

Whereas Sir Arthur saw Columbus with grace, he didn’t extend that benefit to the Spanish kingdom. Then he added, “These are but useless words: how was it possible to enter a country, take a number of its people, and transport them to another place, in any velvet manner?” 

This is an ironic statement since Sir Arthur’s country of origin (England) became an empire by entering other countries, and they participated in the transatlantic slave trade as well. Not to mention that slavery was universal during the Spanish conquest era. This is clearly an anti-Spanish bias comment.

I will recommend people to read the entire letters [4] Sir Arthur Helps partially quoted and commented on, and I will challenge anyone to prove to me where the Spanish kingdom approved the abuse of the natives. They never did. In fact, it was unlawful. Those who did were reported and punished. In contrast, the Indigenous natives practiced slavery, accompanied with sanctioned abuses like cannibalism and human sacrifices. Yet, that part of the story is often swept under the rug.This is not a comment to shame the Indigenous people, but to bring a perspective that is usually ignored. 

History is history, and universal slavery was part of it. Thankfully, we don’t practice it anymore. But to answer the question of this post, Did Christopher Columbus receive a letter saying, “Get gold Get gold, humanely if possible, but at all hazards-get gold”? The answer is, “no.”

Footnotes:
1. Christopher Columbus The Hero 2 by Rafael Ortiz, Chapter 19, p. 157.
2. The Spanish Conquest in America, and its Relation to the History of Slavery and to the Government of Colonies. Vol. I. 1856. 
3. Ibid, p. 234.
4. The title of the book is, Colección de Documentos Inéditos Relativos al Descubrimiento, Conquista y Organización de las Antiguas Posesiones Españolas de Ultramar. Tomo 5, De Los Documentos Legislativos, I. Madrid, 1890. The ebook version is free on Google Play Books.

#sirarthurhelps #getgoldhumanely

"Columbus The Great Adventure" by Paolo Emilio Taviani Book Review

Paolo Emilio Taviani remains one of my favorite Columbus historians of modern times. However, as mentioned in other posts, books written by historians should be supplemental and not a substitute for primary sources. 

The Great Adventure book was published (at least the English translation version) in 1991. There are a lot of good insights in it. The author even took the time to visit many of the places Columbus visited as well. For example, in Chapter 37 he criticizes historians who claim Columbus’ choice for establishing a colony in Panama (during his fourth voyage) was a bad idea, when none of them had seen the place. 

As much as I enjoyed this book, I do have a few criticisms:

First, the book hardly contains any reference citations. 

Second, Taviani thinks Columbus had some “greed” when it comes to gold. 

Third, Taviani insists Columbus was “stubborn” (p. 191) believing he was in Asia and not another continent, even though Columbus was just following the science of his times. 

I disagree with how Taviani talks about Columbus in regards to slavery. I also disagree with Taviani’s assessment that Columbus, in spite of being the greatest explorer of his times, was a bad politician. In addition, Taviani thinks Columbus’ removal from office was a political coup led by no other than the king and queen themselves. On page 219, Taviani mistakenly says Columbus reached North America. Something he never did.

On a positive note, Taviani talks about the good relationship between Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci. He mentions that the king and queen entrusted Columbus with a letter addressed to Vasco da Gama (p. 215), something I wasn’t aware of.

The most impressive thing I learned from this book was that Columbus was correct about the following: During his third voyage, Columbus said that though the earth is round, it does have a protuberance, like a pear or the breast of a woman. Many people have mocked him for this, but he was right. According to Harvard astronomers J.A. O'Keefe and A. Eckels (in 1959), the earth does have a protuberance they describe as a “pear” shape.

In spite of a few disagreements, this is a great book. Yet, Taviani’s other book, Christopher Columbus- The Grand Design, remains my favorite.

#emiliopaolotaviani #bookreview 

About the Author

  

Picture from Columbus’ Documentary “Courage and Conviction”

Rafael Ortiz is the author of several books on Christopher Columbus, including “Christopher Columbus The Hero.” He appeared in the documentary “Courage and Conviction: The True Story of Christopher Columbus”, which was released on TV (EWTN) in 2020. He has been interviewed many times for radio, blogs, magazines, including The Joe Piscopo (Radio) Show, ABC7 News, Breitbart, and many others.  He has also written articles for newspapers, blogs, news sites, both in the USA and Puerto Rico. 

Rafael is the admin and blogger for the Christopher Columbus The Hero blog and he has collaborated with the knowcolumbus.org website as well. He is often sought by Italian American and pro-Columbus groups and individuals, including The Order Sons and Daughters of Italy in America, Italian American One Voice Coalition, The Knights of Columbus, among many others. 

He has defended Columbus and Columbus Day around the country in city councils, schools and universities. He has spoken in Washington DC, Chicago, North Carolina, South Carolina, Colorado, Florida, etc. 

Rafael is a member of the National Christopher Columbus Association. He is Hispanic of Indigenous (Taino) descent born in Puerto Rico. Today he lives in South Carolina with his family. His mission is to disprove modern-day revisionism based on objective truth rooted on primary historical source material.

“God is just and he will see that the truth is known.”

-Christopher Columbus

Website/Blog- https://www.christophercolumbusthehero.com/

Facebook- https://www.facebook.com/christophercolumbusthehero/
YouTube- Christopher Columbus The Hero   
Books- Amazon/Kindle
Memes- imgflip
Documentary about Columbus- Courage and Conviction

Review: "Ethnic America" by Thomas Sowell

 

This is a great book explaining the history and the cultures that came to live in America. This book gave me some insights as I was writing my second book, Columbus Day vs Indigenous Peoples' Day available right here: Amazon/Kindle

#EtnicAmericaThomasSowell

Book Review on the Bobadilla's Report

 

 

If you haven’t read any of my blogs, you should read this one since it’s about the book of the so-called "lost document" from the 16th century that historians found claiming Columbus was a "tyrant" toward the Spanish colonists. This news went viral and it is the “source” used by many mainstream historical, biographical and educational websites to support the claim. The book is titled La Caída de Cristóbal Colón: El juicio de Bobadilla ("The fall of Christopher Columbus: The Judgement of Bobadilla") by Consuelo Varela. The book is divided into two parts. The first one, the author gives some context on the circumstances where the document was written, and the author tells us what’s in it. The second part of the book is the transcription (made by Isabel Aguirre) of the actual report. 

The original report, or document, was written by Francisco de Bobadilla, whom the King and Queen of Spain had sent to Hispaniola to investigate complaints that Spanish colonists were making against Columbus and his brothers during the third voyage. The report is a copy of the original, and it’s 25 "folios" or pages long. The first page is missing. 

Twenty-two "witnesses" answered the questions by Bobadilla, which were divided into three questions: 

1. Did Columbus plan to attack the investigator (Bobadilla) when he arrived, with an army of Spaniard colonists and natives?  

2. Did Columbus and his brothers stop the evangelization of the natives? 

3. Was Columbus and his brothers unjust toward the colonists?

There is a second part to the report at the end, which is ten pages long, and it’s a summary of the last question.

We know the story, we know the accusations were false, we know Bobadilla arrested Columbus and his brothers without due process and sent them in chains to Spain. We also know the King and the Queen of Spain cleared Columbus and his brothers of the charges because they did not believe the accusations. Instead, they sent another investigator to investigate Bobadilla, who then was removed from the governorship’s office. As for the "witnesses" who were engaged in rebellion, they were sentenced for mutiny. Source: The Life of the Admiral by Ferdinand Columbus, Ch. 86.

I can’t believe that the author of the book, who is a historian, believes the report, even though she acknowledges the accusations were fueled by malice, hate, and envy! She even admitted that Bobadilla was excessive in his behavior and that most of the colonists were cheats and hoodlums. 

Now, let’s take a quick look at the three questions on the Bobadilla report: 

Question 1. Did Columbus plan to attack Bobadilla when he arrived in Hispaniola? 

Answer: There is no primary source that says such a thing. In fact, Columbus and his brothers acted very civil with Bobadilla. (Source: The Life of the Admiral by Ferdinand Columbus, Ch. 86, pp. 222-223). But assuming this was true, it should not be surprising that Columbus would prepare a preemptive attack or a defense against a political coup. Prior to this episode, Columbus suffered several political coups and coup attempts from different people. The last agitator was Alonso de Hojeda, who had made a stop at Hispaniola to harass Columbus telling him the queen was "at the point of death," meaning he would be without political protection if the queen was dead. Source: Select Letters of Christopher Columbus, p. 156.

According to the Bobadilla report, even Columbus’ Spanish servants compared Bobadilla to Hojeda in terms of his misconduct. 

Columbus wrote, "When I heard this, I thought he [Bobadilla] must be like Hojeda, or one of the other rebels; but I held my peace, when I learned for certain, from the friars, that he had been sent by their Highness…" Select Letters, p. 161.

Whether this first claim was true or not (that Columbus planned an attack), we know Columbus received Bobadilla peacefully.

Question 2: Did Columbus stop the evangelization of the natives in Hispaniola? 

Answer: Anyone who has read Columbus’ letters or read from those who knew him, will see that he was a very devoted Christian. He is the reason why Christianity is here in the New World. It was one of his main goals for his journeys, therefore this claim is ridiculous. Also, the "witnesses'' contradicted themselves when they said Columbus required one to have a license to evangelize the natives. In other words, he was not stopping the spread of the gospel. What happened was that, according to the Bobadilla report, the natives wanted to "become Christians" in order to receive the gifts Columbus often gave away to them. All that Columbus wanted was to make sure that the natives really understood what Christianity really meant.

Question 3: Were Columbus and his brothers unjust and cruel toward the colonists?

Answer: This is where we get that Columbus and his brothers were indiscriminately punishing colonists by cutting off their "ears and noses, parading women naked through the streets and selling them into slavery." That one "man caught stealing corn had his nose and ears cut off, was placed in shackles and was then auctioned off as a slave. A woman who dared to suggest that Columbus was of lowly birth was punished by his brother Bartolomé… was stripped naked and paraded around the colony on the back of a mule… Bartolomé ordered that her tongue be cut out… Christopher congratulated him for defending the family."

According to the Guardian, Consuelo Varela told journalists that "the Spanish monarchs... became worried by growing rumours of Columbus’ barbarity and avarice." [1] The irony is that neither Consuelo, nor the Guardian, said anything about the Spanish Inquisition. Was that barbaric too? Or is this a case of selective moral outrage?

One of the tactics that Columbus' detractors often use is to remove him from the historical context he lived in. During this era some crimes were indeed punished with torture, cutting ears, noses, floggings, hangings. By the way, the natives used the same, similar, or worse punishments for their criminals. The question here is not if Columbus punished people, but if the people he punished were innocent or guilty of crimes. The claim from the colonists on the report was that Columbus was punishing them for "cosas livianas" or "little things." Was it? The answer is no.

This group of colonists were mutineers and rebels who disobeyed Columbus’ orders to respect their native neighbors, who were his allies. They harassed, assaulted, murdered and raped natives just because they could. The queen herself had ordered Columbus to severely punish any person or persons who would mistreat them. Source: Journals and Other Documents on the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus by Morison, p. 204. 

All Columbus did was to follow instructions. He punished them according to the laws of the time. According to the primary sources, some of them were flogged, others were hung for mutiny and high crimes. Source: Historia General de las Indias by Gómara, Cap. XX, p. 56. Historia General by Herrera, D. I, Lib. IV, Cap. VIII, p. 110.

No primary source says anything of women’s tongue being cut off by Columbus’ brother. This must be one of the charges Columbus referred to in a letter to a friend (Juana de las Torres) as "never invented in hell," meaning, not even hell would invent such accusations. Source: Select Letters, p. 163. 

The mutineers were just trying to minimize their own actions on the report by pleading a lesser crime, like stealing corn just because they were hungry, and so forth. If you have any doubts, this kind of abusive behavior intensified after Columbus was out of office, where many colonists commit all sorts of atrocities, marking a dark chapter in history. Just read A Brief History of the Destruction of the Indies by Fray Bartolome de las Casas and you will see. I would suggest as well reading my books Christopher Columbus The Hero and Christopher Columbus and the Christian Church since some people have and keep misusing Las Casas’ quotes for propaganda purposes.

In the meantime, I’m planning to write a book * about the Bobadilla report with all the details I can’t use here due to space, otherwise this post would be too long. Details like the specific names of the “witnesses,” their specific claims, contradictions, unintended admissions, since the more they talked, the more they incriminated themselves with non "cosas livianas." 
 
To conclude, the people who were cruel here, were the mutineer colonists and not Columbus or his brothers. Columbus and his brothers were just protecting their Taino allies and punishing those who mistreated them. The Bobadilla report is full of half-truths, innuendos, double-talking, slanders, lies, etc. As for Consuelo’s book, I will give it a three-star rating just because the transcription of the document carries great historical interest. 

1. The Guardian

* Update- This post was originally written a few years ago, before I published Christopher Columbus The Hero.2.: Debunking The Accusations That Led To His Arrest book in 2023. You can buy the book by clicking the following link: Amazon/Kindle

#ConsueloVarela #IsabelAguirre #LaCaidaDeCristobalColon #BookReview #Debunking #FranciscoDeBobadilla