Juan

Blog Assignment #1 — Camila Townsend

1. What historical question or problem does the author attempt to address?
The author attempts to tackle questions such as how were the Spanish able to conquer Mexico and the New World? If the Spanish were only a handful of people, how were they able to defeat an entire Aztec civilization and what tactics/techniques did they use to achieve this? What advantages did the Spanish have over those they were trying to conquer that made their triumph a reality? What were the indigenous thinking at the time of the conquest? According to what the author presents it seems to be that the conquest was something predictable, expected. She also presents the idea that, at the beginning, the Spanish were viewed as gods by the Aztecs; if this is true then it became a great advantage into achieving their ultimate goal, conquering the Aztec civilization and the New World.

2. What sources does she use to investigate the question?
The main sources Townsed uses to investigate the questions she presents are stories. She cites books that have been written by people who assure they have writings from Cortes and Moctezuma’s time. She was able to collect a variety of books that narrate what happened in that era while at the same time trying to view the arguments from both sides of they story. Many of the writings Townsend uses are in their original version, Nahua, this helps her get a better understanding of what really happened while acknowledging both sides of the story.

3. What are her main points, and what is her overall conclusion?
One of Townsend’s main points is the fact that the conquest was inevitable, no matter what the Aztec’s did, the Spanish would succeed in conquering them. The Spanish had many advantages that gave them the head start, one of them being technology. The Spanish had maps, tools and weapons that gave them the lead over the more native civilizations. Another aspect that helped the Spanish were the diseases they brought with them which killed many civilizations. The natives had no defense against the Spanish; they were not prepared for fighting what was coming their way. The Spanish showed no respect for the history and the culture of the civilizations they were conquering, they entered with just one goal in mind regardless of the thousands of lives they had to take and the loss of so much history.
Her overall conclusion is that the Spanish conquest was an unavoidable yet dishonest event. The Spanish had much more advantages to work with compared to the natives and they used deceitful tactics that placed the Aztecs in great disadvantage. One of them was becoming friends with the natives and then bringing them down without any remorse. The Spanish manipulated the natives and befriended them with false pretenses; the advantages the Spanish had made the battle extremely unfair for the Aztecs and it gave the Spanish a free pass into conquering the Mexico and the New World.

4. Do you think she proved her argument? Why or why not? Cite at least two (2) specific examples from the essay to illustrate your own points.
Townsend is able to prove her argument because she is able to provide evidence that backs up her statements. Her conclusion that the conquest was deceitful and unfair can be proven through the writings she presents. The imbalance of power that was present in this conquest is very noticeable and Townsend proves this by using writings from the era that help show the injustice.

“The Spanish had learned how to use what they had to enable groups of two hundred men to withstand masses of enemies. Both their harquebus and crossbow firings were able to slice through the Indians’ cotton armor, and, because of their weapons’ range, they could attack lethally when the Indians were still distant; furthermore, mounted Europeans carrying long metal lances could forge a path through the throngs. 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)

“Carlos V could only annex territories that came to him voluntarily or through a just war. It was thus very important that Moctezuma swear fealty to the Spanish monarch early in the letter, before his people rebelled, when they technically became traitors. Placing Moctezuma under arrest without his protesting the Spaniards’ right to do so was a crucial symbolic step.” (Towsend, 32)

The first quotation shows the imbalance of power, how the Spanish had the head start, the better tools and technology that gave them the lead over the Aztecs. The second quotation shows how deceitful the Spanish were, becoming friends with the natives under false pretenses and then destroyed this trust by stabbing the natives in the back and arresting Moctezuma.

5. Why is the answer important (or not, in your opinion) as we study the history of the United States?
I think the answer is important as we study the history of the United States because it’s an important part of history and it marks an important shift. As the Spanish integrated into the New World they created a new culture, new ideals and a new beginning. ‘Mestizos’ is the name given to the children of those born from the mix of having a Spanish and a native parent. This mix of cultures was something new, something that changed the outcome of the conquest.
It is important to study the answer to these questions because it helps understand what happened in the past. The history of the conquest of the New World affected the history of the United States therefore by understanding what really happened and answering those questions it becomes easier to understand where the United States comes from. Historical events are not single identities but they are events that intertwine and one affects the other even if it’s in a small way. Therefore, if we are able to understand what happened in the Spanish conquest it makes us a step closer into understanding the history of the United States.

Blog Assignment #2 — Breen

1. Breen examines the question of trade and its importance in the American culture. He states how trade not only influenced the culture but also American politics and the decisions that took place at that time. Breen highlights the arguments that occurred between the colonies and Great Britain due to trade and importation, and how the misunderstanding of how much wealth Americans actually had triggered this dispute. He points out that there is a misunderstanding between what the British saw when they got to America and what the American actually possessed. For the British, “colonies were wallowing in wealth and luxury,” (pg.473) and therefore they decided to apply a tax, while for the Americans they saw themselves unable to pay for this tax because the reality was they were not as rich as the displayed themselves to be. “despite their superficial glamour, eighteenth-century Americans remained provincial bumpkins, too poor to pay parliamentary taxes and too untutored to display their wealth tastefully.” (pg. 474) The main issue presented by Been is trade, importation, spending on exported goods, the appearance colonists wanted to give to the British and the reality they had to face.

2. Breen’s main points are to establish the arguments that took place in the dispute between colonists and Great Britain. Also to point out the role trade played in the American culture and its politics. How trade affected the relationship between American and Great Britain and how America took steps, imposed ‘Acts’, in order to rebel against the imposition that British trade was for them.
He argues that the British felt they were superior and more powerful than the colonists and how the Americans would try to mimic the foreigners in order to display wealth and power. Colonists began to use the same clothes, buy furniture and housing items that came from Great Britain just to make a good impression to those foreigners who came and fought for the colonists. It is this unusual and unrealistic display of wealth that lead Britain to add taxes in order to keep Americans poor and have a greater power over them. This led to different outbursts from the colonists’ side who did not want and, more importantly, could not pay those taxes. They decided they would take matters into their own hands and began protests, and boycotts against international merchandises and one of them included the ‘Nonimportation Agreement’ which had the basis of not buying anything that came from Great Britain. Later on it was changed into not buying anything that came from Great Britain and had a tax which essentially was tea. These boycotts seemed powerful but at the same time they did not necessarily reflect the entire population because the main actors in this spectacle were rich, male and not ‘mechanics’ as one writer states.
Breen’s conclusion is that this is only one of the various reasons for the change in the social and economical conditions of the British empire. He argues that this set of actions led to a rapid and dramatic change in what the politics, economics and social life of both Great Britain and America came to be. He states that commerce came to be a very important lever to the changes that occurred during this time and how big of an impact this argument of commerce and capitalism came to be, it revolutionized how Americans viewed politics. “For consuming Americans, the mental process had unintended results: the creation of political instruments open to persons of “all ranks,” the development of a concept of virtue that included any man or woman capable of economic self-restraint, and the formation of new interpretive communities based on shared, secular interests” (pg. 501)

3. Breen supports his arguments with a variety of newspaper sources that range from the period in which the events happened such as the Boston Gazette and the Boston Evening Post, to more recent documents such as Shklar’s American Citizenship: The Quest for Inclusion. He based his arguments from what he got from this sources such as arguing that ‘taxation without representation’ is unjust (Boston Evening Post), as well as arguing that Americans could manufacture goods themselves (Shklar’s American Citizenship: The Quest for Inclusion) which began an entire new discussion regarding the capabilities of the Americans and their reliance on Great Britain.

4. Breen’s article supports the idea that it was national community that held American’s together during this struggle against Great Britain but he argued that at the beginning only the wealthy, white Americans were taken into account. After seeing how everything started to crumble because they only had taken a minority into account the realized they needed to come together and give a vote to everyone regardless of their status in order to come out victorious of this battle. It is after this realization that all American’s came together and it was this unity that made it possible for them to go through the war against Great Britain. Hadn’t they stuck together then the outcome would have been very different. It is because of this unity that a new political instrument emerges, and it is because of this that American’s were able to go through the struggle.

5. I found Breen’s article to be well-argued and persuasive because it presented different points in a very precise way and at the same he was able to present evidence to support what he was saying. What he said had back-up and the way he said it made the readers believe it. For example, when he argues the idea of the misinterpretation between what the foreigners saw and the reality that existed. He presents the idea and then presents evidence to back up what he is saying. In the first paragraph of page 473 it can be seen how he concisely presents the idea and then the evidence to support what he argues. This is just one example, Breen is able to do this across the entire article, presenting concrete ideas and backing them up with evidence either from newspapers of that time or with writings from this time.
Before reading Breen’s article I had no idea of how important commerce was and the impact it had on American’s culture and its politics. It amused me how simple commerce seems to be but how much of an impact it can have in an entire country. It was fascinating for me as a foreigner to see how the colonists wanted to appear wealthy when in reality they had no wealth and this misunderstanding of reality is what set the struggle between America and Great Britain. One quotation that struck me was “The British refused to appreciate that, despite their superficial glamour, eighteenth-century Americans remained provincial bumpkins, too poor to pay parliamentary taxes and too untutored to display their wealth tastefully.” (pg. 474.) It is a quote that explained everything in simple, concrete ways. It explained the misunderstanding and how ridiculous it was to try to act as wealthy people when reality was different. It made me think of how this is still common in today’s world and that maybe that was the beginning of a pattern in which people try to appear as something they are not. I had no idea of this struggle and how commerce was linked to politics and how powerful it could be therefore this was a very entertaining article, I liked how evidence was presented and how he made his points concrete and concise without giving it too many complications.

Blog Assignment#3
1. In the article written by Jacqueline Campbell “The Most Diabolical Act of all the Barbarous War’: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Burning of Columbia, February 1865” she examines the idea of women’s roles during the Civil war in the South. Moreover, the author also examines the ways in which women were left behind during the attacks in which they had to defend themselves and fight with courage in order to survive. It was these attitudes and the power they demonstrated that helped them gain stronger and more important roles within society over time. The pride, honor and loyalty that remained in these women signified their advancement in more important and more influential roles in the South, it lead to the empowering of womanhood the acknowledgement that women were as strong and as influential in society as any other person. These attitudes were described as “’almost masculine firmness,’ displayed in a spirit of ‘inflexible endurance’” (Campbell, 58) by William Simms.
2. Campbell’s main points are the emphasis she makes in the loyalty and pride that these Southern women felt during the civil war. Moreover, she focuses on the fact that these Southern, elite women fought for their honor and for their families like men usually did. While men were off fighting the war these women were also fighting the war in their own homes, they were protecting what was important for them, When threatened by an invading army the responded both as mothers and warriors” (Campbell, 59), and they demonstrated a power and loyalty that many men had overlooked in the past. The way in which women fought impressed many, the Yankee men were “astonished with which the confederate women fought to maintain their dignity and property” (Campbell, 58). “A New Jersey lieutenant remarked on how ‘determined’ and ‘resolute’ he found the white women of the Palmetto State” (Campbell, 58). In conclusion, the author believes that there a combination of hate and pride flourished due to this war as women had to fight and see the suffering first hand. The role women played in this war was very important and it helped in the unification of the Confederacy. The strength and determination that the Southern women demonstrated during the Civil war symbolizes the sacrifice that many women have had to endure in order to overcome all the obstacles they encounter during their life. It is this sacrifice that helped inspire many women across the USA in the years to come after the war.
3. The sources used by the author come from other historians such as Mark Grimsley, Cory Gallagher and Drew Gilpin. She also makes mention of Civil War historians such as James McPherson. She uses Mark Grimsley and James McPherson to provide in-depth detail and greater attention to both, the cultural and social, implications of the Civil war. She uses the first hand accounts from authors such as William Simms and Emma LeConte which provide great support to the arguments Campbell presents.
4.When comparing Campbell’s article with the idea of ‘true womanhood’ it has to be taken into account that the author supports this idea. This can be seen as Campbell presents different examples of woman being brave and empowered during their fight in the Civil War. Throughout her article, Campbell presents the idea that woman fought the Civil war like true warriors which supports the belief of ‘true womanhood’. In the text ‘Out of Many’ woman were split into two groups, which were the elite Southern women, and the middle-lower class Southern women. The elite women had more benefits compared to the middle-lower class, which meant that those women in the middle-lower class had to suffer much more. The elite women are depicted in a more negative light due to this advantage they have over other women in loser classes. In the text ‘Constructing the American Past’, the two groups of women are depicted as well, elite and non-elite. The elite women had much more advantages such as having their husbands’ home because they could pay their way off the draft. Due to the advantages elite women had, it was perplexing for the non-elite women to understand how the elite women could appear to be so loyal and proud to the Confederacy if they were neither fighting nor suffering. The middle-lower class women were not in support of the Confederacy but the elite women were which brought on tension and frustration between them.
5. The idea of ‘true womanhood’ and ‘female honor’ are incorporated throughout the article. As Campbell stated, “Although elite women may have lacked the physical strength of their menfolk, they were able to call upon other weapons with which to defend their homes and persons.” (Campbell, 57). Women didn’t need strength, they used their moral authority to stop soldiers “Many used the moral authority commonly ascribed to women of their race and class to stop soldiers in their tracks” (Campbell, 57). Faust believed that it was the elite white women’s disillusionment with and growing resistance to the war that played a significant role in the Confederacy’s defeat but Campbell disagrees with this notion. She argues that the women of the South believed their sacrifice and support would help them gain respect amongst men. They began to blame the Yankee soldiers and the inabilities of their own people and the government rather than blaming themselves. The commitment and sacrifice the elite women demonstrated is what helped the men throughout the war, they had no blame to take regarding the defeat of the Confederacy. I personally think that Sherman’s march constituted total war because it was unexpected and unjust. Sherman did not only terrorize people but he destroyed and damaged a culture and people’s homes. He was someone who did not care about respecting other people’s property and paid no attention to enemy lines; he was focused on destroying everything regardless of what that meant. In today’s wars a ‘total war’ is synonym of destroying everything and greatly impacting civilian’s lives. An example of this is the current war in Iraq in which civilians are obviously being affected by what is happening even thought they might have nothing to do with it. It is a ‘total war’ therefore everything goes including damaging civilians.