Faust

“Blog Assignment #1 – Townsend”

1. Camilla Townsend addresses several historical questions in her article. She questions whether or not the natives thought of the Spanish as gods, how the Spanish conquered the New World, and how the Spanish had such a plausible conquest. While, the Spanish’s rule was expected and inevitable, the natives were very interested in learning about the Spanish and wanted to know as much as possible about them.
2. Townsend references several myths and stories to answer these questions. These stories have been passed down over generations and are claimed to be from the time of Moctezuma, the leader of the Aztecs, and Cortes, the Spanish leader. Townsend uses these sources and presents both sides.
3. Townsend’s main point throughout her article is that the Spanish conquest was unavoidable. No matter how the natives tried to fight off the Spanish it was impossible. It would have been smart for the natives to ally with the Spanish; they were strong and technologically advanced. However, they were armed and only interested in conquering and acquiring new land. Ultimately, Townsend makes the point that the natives were unprepared for the Spanish lack of respect, cruelty, and inevitable take-over of their lands.
4. I believe that Townsend proved her argument. Throughout her article she makes the statement that the take over was unfair. The Spanish were conniving and cruel towards the natives and the Aztecs. Cortes even wrote of his cruelty saying, “I burnt more than ten villages, in one of which there were more than three thousand houses, where the inhabitants fought with us, although there was no one [no warriors] there to help them. They would rather be Your Highness’s vassals than see their houses destroyed and their women and children killed” (Townsend, 41). The Spanish also had a significant advantage over the natives technologically. “The Spanish had a technological advantage large enough to ensure their victory, especially if we acknowledge that their technology included not only blunderbusses and powder but also printing presses, steel blades and armor, crossbows, horses and riding equipment, ships, navigation tools—and indirectly, as a result of the latter three, an array of diseases” (Townsend, 5).
5. The answers to the questions that Townsend presents are important to our study of United States history because they give us inside knowledge to the relationship of the Europeans and the natives of the New World in the past. Understanding those relationships makes me better understand how the relationships developed and how they lead to the relationships between the different groups of people in the future or even now.

“Blog Assignment #2 – Breen”

1. In his article, T. H. Breen recreates the framework that informed one of the fundamental narratives of the mid-eighteenth century in order to better understand how the Americans came to visualize themselves as independent with regards to trade. He examines the importance of trade in American culture. In this particular article, Breen “reconstituted a frame of reference that defined itself around participation in a newly established consumer marketplace” (Breen, 501). He argues that things like commercial capitalism imposed on the lives of Americans. Trade affected the politics and culture of early America. Breen believes that the Revolution was genuinely revolutionary due to the unintentional results of the commercial ideas of the Americans.

2. Breen’s main points touch on the many arguments had between the Americans and the British. His main point is that trade affected the relationship between the two countries and ultimately affected the politics and culture of the American people. The British believed themselves to be more powerful than the Americans. Therefore, when the Americans, in order to show off whatever wealth they had, started dressing in finer clothing, using expensive furnishings, and holding lavish events, the British became angry. This caused them to impose different Acts on the Americans, which involved severe taxes for British goods. The Americans also became angry and began boycotting British goods entirely. Breen concludes that the creation of political instruments available to all ranks, the improvement of a virtue concept including all those capable of economic self-restraint, and the development of interpretive communities based on shared and secular interests were the results of the mental process of consuming Americans.

3. Breen provides several sources as evidence of his claim. He uses several newspaper, journals, articles, sermons, letters and pamphlets as primary sources claiming that he had “examined all the major colonial newspapers of this period as well as the familiar pamphlet and sermonic literature” (Breen, 479). Breen mainly used newspapers such as the Boston Gazette, the Boston Evening Post, the South Carolina Gazette, and the Pennsylvania Chronicle as his primary sources.

4. This article challenges the presentation of the American’s war for independence from Britain given by Out of Many, which states, “The glue that held the Americans together during this long struggle was the sense of national community that emerged in places like Valley Forge during the winter of 1777” (Out of Many, 166). In other words, the textbook presents the idea the Seven Years’ War brought the colonies together and unified them against the British. However, Breen’s article supports the idea that the colonies’ unity was strengthened by the boycotts against Great Britain due to the fact that all the colonies participated.

5. Breen’s article was well written and very persuasive. He presented several sources with factual evidence from the time period. He really illustrated the idea that the Americans’ desire to show off for their British visitors with lavish clothing and houses was detrimental for them. Breen presents that the “The Boston Evening-Post noted that the British belief in ‘our being in affluent and flourishing circumstances, was grounded upon a mistake or the misrepresentation” (Breen, 475).  He also argued that the boycotts were the main reason for the colonies unity. He presented convincing evidence that was different from the textbook. This did make me consider both positions carefully, but ultimately change my mind from my original theory about the revolutionary era.

“Blog Assignment #3 – Campbell”

1. In Jacqueline G. Campbell’s “The Most Diabolical Act of the Barbarous War’: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Burning of Columbia, February 1865”, she examines the role of elite southern women during the Civil War, especially in Columbia, South Carolina. Campbell states that throughout the war, the women in the South were proud and loyal to the Confederate nation, which surprised many, especially the Northerners. The women’s loyalty, pride, and honor to their nation, Campbell argues, guided the path for woman to earn strong and influential roles in their communities.

2. Throughout her article, Campbell highlights the loyalty and pride that Southern women had for their nation during the Civil War. The southern women “recognized the broader goals of war, they saw themselves as political actors, and they shared the cultural mores of the men of their own race and class” (Campbell, 66). Campbell also touches on the Yankee soldier’s views of these strong women who demanded respect and were very opinionated. The Northern soldiers believed the women’s’ pride to be very helpful for the Confederates. She noted that northern men often complained that the southern women rejected the North’s superiority. They were surprised that the women would fight “as mothers and warriors” to maintain their dignity and pride (Campbell, 59). She concludes her article claiming that the southern women “certainly had reason enough to hate Yankee soldiers who wrought such devastation on their homes and country” as well as their lack of chivalry compared to their southern gentlemen like Robert E. Lee (Campbell, 66). That mixed with their strong sense of pride and loyalty led Confederate men to recognize their female kin’s power and authority, even after the war.  Ultimately, she claims that the “Civil War glorified the role of the white soldier, occluded the roles of blacks, and rendered white southern women victims of northern atrocities and potential victims of black rapists” (Campbell, 68).

3. Campbell refers to several other Civil War historians in her article. She draws on historians like Mark Grimsley, James McPherson, Drew Gilpin Faust, William Blair, and Gary Gallagher. Campbell strengthens her argument by disagreeing with Faust’s claim that the war “burdened [the women] emotionally and materially in ways they were not prepared to handle” (Campbell, 54). She uses McPherson’s argument to strengthen her argument as well.

4. Campbell’s article examines developing authority for women as a result of the Civil War. She emphasizes how southern women fought like “mothers and warriors” to support their Confederate nation. However, in the textbook, Out of Many claim that there were many differences between the elite southern women and the middle/lower class southern women. The non-elite women were very angry because the elite women had many pleasures that weren’t available to the middle/lower class women during the war. Also, the lower class women did not appreciate the upper class women’s pride and loyalty of the Confederacy because they did not suffer the same grievances that the lower classes did.

5. Campbell incorporates the notions of “true womanhood” and “female honor” by making the claim that southern women were willing to do anything to protect their families. They knew and developed their importance in their communities. The women found many reasons to hate the Yankee soldiers due to the havoc they caused on the Confederacy, especially the burning of Columbia, SC. She illustrated how the southern woman utilized their morals to try to stop the Yankee soldiers. The women would use their manners and southern charm to demand respect. She uses women like Grace Elmore and Emma LeConte, who disapprove of and spoke out against Northern men to show her support for the Confederacy. Campbell disagrees with Drew Gilpin Faust’s argument that elite white women’s disillusionment with and growing resistance to the war, especially after Sherman’s march, played a significant role in the Confederacy’s defeat. She claims women played a major role in the unification of the Confederate army.  Sherman’s march did not constitute “total war” as it is understood today. The war was extremely destructive, however, women and children were not usually harmed.