Andie M

Blog Assignment # 1 — Townsend

1. How did the Spanish conquer Mexico and the New World? What were their tactics in this unfamiliar territory? What was their advantage and how was it so feasible? The conflict and perplexity was on both ends of the spectrum. The natives questioned who these newcomers were and wanted to know as much about them as the Europeans gazed at their culture and way of life. Animosity and curiosity struck both groups, and the decision on becoming allies or enemies was crucial. Although it is awing, the Spanish domination was perfectly predictable.

2. Townsend uses numerous sources, several of which are “stories” or “myths” passed through generations. The books that she cites are written by authors who claim to have writings from the era of Cortes and Moctezuma. She claims that there were a number of indigenous writers during this period, including the grandson of Moctezuma. Many of the sources Townsend uses are in their original Nahua version. Townsend views the argument from both viewpoints, but is very verbal on her stance about how the natives viewed the Spanish as invaders of their home.

3. Townsend’s main points are that no matter how the Aztecs and natives tried to fight off the Spanish conquest, it was inevitable. It was in their best interest to ally with the Spanish. Although they were not trustworthy, they knew how to gain power. One of the lethal weapons the Spanish brought to the Americas was disease, which destroyed and killed many civilizations. Despite the native efforts to fight off the Europeans, they had an unfair disadvantage. The Spanish were teeming with technology and armed. They were equipped with maps and tools and ready to settle and conquer the new lands. Although they claimed they also wanted to spread Christianity, it was a miniscule task compared to finding Gold and claiming lands (Glory). As Townsend writes:

“Yet in the end, it was no accident that the Europeans won” (Townsend, 38).

Most of the natives were content, peaceful and war-free, and did not feel obliged to protect themselves until the Spanish arrived. It is truly saddening how the Spanish defined conquering as man-slaughtering entire civilizations rich in history and culture. Although the Spanish integrated the most into the Native American culture out of all the Europeans, they showed no respect and practiced acts of cruelty, later being published in the “The Black Legend.”

4.  I believe Townsend rightly proved her argument in that her conclusion states that the conquest was an imbalanced and dishonest defeat for the Spanish. The conquest of Mexico was planned yet complex. The hypocritical actions of befriending the natives and then overthrowing them as a group was put to task. Cortes manipulated the natives in many deceitful ways:

“Cortes was using language to leap another legalistic hurdle…It was thus very important that Moctezuma swear fealty to the Spanish monarch early in the letter, before his people rebelled. Placing Moctezuma under arrest without his protesting the Spaniards’ right to do so was a crucial symbolic step,” explains John Elliott, (Townsend, 32).

This being said, it is no accident that the Europeans won. Although many argue that the disease weakened the natives, their military capabilities were on different levels. The technology gap was the problem:

“The Indians could fire their arrows at six times the rate of a Spanish blunderbuss, but to no avail, because metal armor rendered the Europeans nearly impervious,” (Townsend, 38).

5.        Learning about the history of the Spanish conquest and the “New World” which for the Spanish comprised of Latin America, the Southwestern United States, and the Caribbean islands, is critical to what follows the region’s future. After Columbus explored the New World, the message in Europe spread and other monarchies wanted to send their explorers to claim land. They dreamed of riches and gold. England and France became Spain’s main competitors in the America’s. After the Spanish integrated into the culture with the natives, they created their own socioeconomic background, ethnicity, and culture. This mixed culture combined makes up what are known as mestizos. This worked to their advantage as these people began to relate to both cultures and the bloodshed slowly diminished. Even today, the majority of Latin America has some native and Spanish descent mixed. The other colonial powers, like England, neglected to mix with the native people, which consequentially made their transition into the New World more difficult to many degrees.

Blog Assignment #2 — Breen

1.Breen examines the historical importance of trade and how it influenced not only the culture of America but the politics as well. Breen points out how dispute between the colonies and Great Britain escalated even more with the misunderstanding that the “colonies were wallowing in wealth and luxury,” (473). In addition, the British “refused to believe that despite their superficial glamour, eighteenth-century Americans remained provincial bumpkins, too par to pay taxes…too untutored to display their wealth tastefully,” (474). In essence, The British wanted to keep the Americans poor enough to be tied and economically reliant on them but rich enough to pay off the rising taxes that were being imposed on them.

2.Breen’s main points are to justify the colonial ways as the birth of an Americana culture. Within this, trade and politics are significantly powerful as they create conflict between the colonies and England. In addition, the struggle of wealth and ongoing battle of how the colonies were bountiful with riches was to the colonists a false accusation. The British still felt a feeling of superiority and held a stigma against the colonists, claiming that even with the riches they did not know how to display their wealth. The American elite, who would imitate the dress and customs of foreigners, made up a small percentage of the population, and were essentially the only ones who this message was targeted at. Even so the Americans argued that the misinterpretation of American indulgence and wealth was grounded upon the mistake of travelers, yet the British continued to fire that they indulged in wealth in naïve ways“…It was not so much that the reports of extravagant American market behavior had been erroneous, rather the colonists were parvenu consumers who had failed to master the etiquette of a polite society,” (474). The rising tension between Britain and the colonies and the British response of sending troops to the American port cities to keep careful watch did not ease things. The British expected the Americans to be thankful that the troops were there as it meant that they were finally being paid attention to. As one will read in history, the Americans are not appreciative of the British invasion and as a result, put into order a series of “Acts”, where importation was halted. As Breen states, “Americans of the time were experimenting with new form of community, founded not on traditional religious affiliations but on shared commercial and political interests,” (487). This held a tremendous amount of impact on the government and in turn, the economy of both Britain and the colonies.

3. Breen’s arguments are supported by a variation of newspaper sources during the period (Boston Evening Post, 1767) to documents from today (Shklar’sAmerican Citizenship: The Quest for Inclusion). The Boston Evening Post argued how it was unjust to have “taxation without representation” while Shklar indicated that Americans could go into manufacturing themselves, which strengthened the idea of boycotting imported goods and in turn sanctioned American pride and community.

4. First off, commerce distinguished the British empire from other empires but peace, security, liberty, and coherence are what made America. As America entered the war against their Motherland, they had no choice but to stick together and rally against the injustices the British threw upon them.  The American identity was born after the British troops invaded their homes and were demanding of anything as they could not be punished in the colonies. Initially, the Americans felt helpless and taken for granted, but soon realized if they stuck together as a community, both pride and numbers would not permit British defeat.

5.I found Breen’s article to be well-argued in persuasive in that it established and explained each point in a concise yet intricate manner. For example, Breen argues that despite the disputes and conflict both sides held, the Americans started to glue together a marketplace for themselves, which enhanced political and economic standpoints immensely. Before I read the article, I was not as aware how much commerce and trade affected the birth of our nation and helped develop a respectable economy. Boycotting the imported items created a sense of national identity where the idea that “American is better” came into play, which created loyalty and pride among the colonists. Now that America had created its own marketplace, it had no reason to continue its dependency on England and had the strength to fight back in what would soon be known as the American Revolution.

Blog Assignment 3- Campbell

1. In “‘The Most Diabolical Act of all the Barbarous War’: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Burning of Columbia, February 1865,” Campbell examines the concepts and roles of women in the South during the Civil War in a city that is being crumbled to pieces- Columbia, SC. The honor and relation that women feel to the Confederate nation is what shocks the Yankee soldiers. No matter the idea that they may be losing, their pride and honor remains and loyalty is fundamental. In the future, this eventually leads to empowering womanhood and identifying Southern women as strong and influential in society.

2. Campbell’s main points are emphasizing the loyalty and pride that Southern elite women felt during the Civil War. The notion that their city was being crumbled by the “malicious enemy” is what drove these women to “hate” the Yankee soldiers, despite the fact that some of the women as one reads were helped and saved by them. The patriotism was widespread throughout the South among the women who stayed at home but took on authoritative roles while their husbands, brothers, and sons fought for their independence from the North. Their deviant behavior was not only peculiar to the Union soldiers though, as they too recognized that they were abnormally outspoken and demanded respect. As Campbell states: “When threatened by an invading army they responded both as mothers and warriors,” (59). The stubbornness and unyielding views on the war is something that several Northern men found to be extremely helpful for the Confederate soldiers, as somebody believed in them, weak as they might be. Campbell adds that Sherman’s men frequently complained about the southern women who refused to recognize the cultural or military superiority of the North and were astonished at how Southern women fought to maintain both their dignity and property. In conclusion, Campbell believes that the combination of arrogance and experiencing the suffering firsthand (in their own city) together created a blend of hatred and pride. The Confederate men were even sure that the Union soldiers would be greeted by their wives with courage, defiance, and hatred, which even after the defeat of the war they came to realize was female power and authority that should be recognized. The strength and determination of the southern women symbolized sacrifice which would soon become the aspired icon of females across the United States.

3.Campbell uses other historians as sources like Cory Gallagher and Drew Gilpin Faust to emphasize her beliefs. She uses Faust to sharpen her argument in that she does not agree entirely with him. She also mentions James McPherson’s analysis of the Civil War- where he argues that the war was one of hatred and revenge and the women could easily identify with these sentiments as it only helped them in recognizing them as cultural mores on the home front.

4. Campbell’s article addresses the main points of identifying the evolving power and authority bestowed upon women during the Civil War. In the Confederacy, the women fought as best they could (verbal abuse, unwelcoming gestures) to ensure that the enemy knew their heart was with the Confederacy. In the texts Out of Many and Constructing the American Past, the Southern women are still depicted as very loyal and proud, although the elite women are depicted in a negative light. They did not have to experience starvation first handedly as the middle class women did. In Constructing the American Past the non-elite Southern women are said to have marched into a bakery demanding “Bread! Bread! Our children are starving while the rich roll in wealth!” (441).  The elite women often still had their husbands at home too as they could pay their way out of the draft. The non-elite Southerners could not understand how the elite could act so loyal and proud to the Confederacy if they were not suffering or fighting.

5. Campbell identifies one woman, Emma LeConte, who recalled the terror of the raids by the pillagers. Campbell adds that some of the elite white women used their moral authority to stop the soldiers or raiders. She explains how two women knelt and sang out a loud psalm which had an immediate influence on the soldiers (57). Even after Sherman’s march, they showed no signs of regret or timidity and displayed their pride of not only being Southern but women too.They continued to be determinant and resolute in their manners. Campbell disagrees with Faust in that the disillusionment is what provoked defeat among the Confederates. Although the commitment and sacrifice that the women put into the war is what drove the men to continue fighting, the women believed that their sacrifice and support would in turn gain them respect and they would no longer be viewed as “useless”, so as the end of the war came closer, and inevitable defeat was nearing, the women of the South found that blaming the Yankee soldiers and the inadequacies of their own people and government was most appropriate. Why blame themselves when they could vent on the enemy for an eternity? I believe that Sherman’s march constituted warfare that was unexpected and viewed as entirely unjust but sly. The Southerners were accustomed to a wage war, and Sherman terrorized, destroyed and damage not only property and culture but households as well. He ignored enemy lines, destroying anything. I believe that his plan to “shake up” the home front was so that the soldiers in the battlefield would feel threatened. This form of warfare has become fairly common and repetitive in history. We have seen this in World War II and even in the War in Iraq today- hurting civilians and destroying homes to infuriate and threaten the enemy. Unfortunately, these days, “total war” almost inevitably involves civilians.