Kelly

“Blog Assignment #1 – Townsend”

1.         What historical question or problem does the author attempt to address?

The historical problem the author, Camilla Townsend, attempts to address is the real story on how the conquest of Mexico really happened. The author presents one main idea, technology, with three parts to it. She states, “First, that we must put technology in all its forms—beyond mere weaponry—front and center in our story of conquest; second, that we can safely do this because new evidence from scientists offers us explanations for divergent technological levels that have nothing to do with differences in intelligence; and third, that the Mexicans themselves immediately became aware of the technology gap and responded to it with intelligence and savvy rather than wide-eyed talk of gods” (Townsend 2).  Finally, she states that the conquerors really were viewed as gods, but for reasons that are explained.

2.         What sources does she use to investigate the question?

Camilla Townsend uses a variety of sources to investigate her question. She uses books, other authors, scientists, and personal accounts from people from the time period. For example, she uses the book Guns, Germs, and Steel: The fate of Human Societies by Jared Diamond, Tzvetan Todorov’s Conquest of America: The Question of the Other, and a personal account from Motolinía, to argue her point.

3.         What are her main points, and what is her overall conclusion?

Townsend main points are that the indigenous people were technologically behind, the conquerors really were viewed as gods because the indigenous people predicted people from “another world” to come and the conquerors came at that time, and the translations of their stories of the conquerors were different from other groups. Her overall conclusion is based on the facts that the conquerors may have been viewed as gods, but only the reason they were viewed as gods is they luckily came the time of the indigenous people had predicted that their gods would come visit them.

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.

I believe that she is dead on in her argument. She proved that the indigenous people of Mexico were way technologically behind their conquerors and if the conquerors were really viewed as “gods”. Camilla states, “The obvious explanation for conquest, many would argue, is technology. 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).  Another quote Camillia states is that, “We must bear in mind that they were the sons and grandsons of Tenochtitlan’s most elite citizens—descendants of priests and nobles. It was their own class, even their own family members, who might have been thought to be at fault if it were true that they had had no idea that the Spaniards existed prior to their arrival” (Townsend 15). The indigenous people really didn’t know that the conquerors of Mexico would come, so that is why the conqeruros really were viewed as gods.

5.         Why is the answer important (or not, in your opinion) as we study the history of the United States?

The answer is important as we study the history of the United States I believe because we need to know the facts about what happened. If the is no solution to a problem, how are we ever to solve it when a similar problem arises?

Blog Assignment #2 – Bouton Article

1.  In Bouton’s article, “A Road Closed: Rural Insurgency in Post-Independence Pennsylvania”, the author explains the strange phenomenon of rural farmers closing off the main road that leads to other communities in Pennsylvania during the late 1700s. Bouton starts off with a question asking, “Why did the farmers throughout Pennsylvania expend so much energy in obstructing highways and keeping them closed for long periods of time?” (Bouton 857). He answers by telling us the main reason that the farmers in Pennsylvania blockading the main road was because of the economic crisis that was building after the American Revolution. Bouton also states that, “In postwar Pennsylvania, the dominant fact of life everywhere in the state was a profound scarcity of money and credit” (Bouton 858).The farmers were trying to protect their investments from being taken by the local government because either their credit was bad, they owed too much, or the government owed the farmers money, but the government didn’t have the money to pay them. This economic downfall is what drove the farmers to revolutionize and use risky strategies to make sure that they didn’t go under.

2. Bouton’s main points of his article is that the rural farmers blockaded the main roads, revolted, and sometimes attacked government officials because the economy was in such a big turmoil. He states, “Forced property sales were not limited to Philadelphia: the scarcity of money had unleashed a statewide epidemic of foreclosures” (Bouton 859). The scarcity of money around Philadelphia made it real hard for farmers to pay off debts, pay for his land, or even collect money that was owed to him. After the war, there was huge debt to be paid off and the United States did not have that kind of money at that time. By having no money really to pay off the war debt, “all war debt certificates fell in worth” (Bouton 861). The people’s certificates were not worth that much that they paid for in the beginning, so they either got paid less than what they should’ve received, or not get paid at all. One final argument Bouton states is that he “saw these laws as self-interested attempts to saddle the public with new taxes for personal gain” (Bouton 884). The government was trying to get money by trying to rob the rural farmers of their money so that they could pay off the war debt and try and circulate more money. Bouton ends with saying that the rural farmers were betrayed more than liberated (Bouton 887). Bouton explains that the rural farmers got the short end of the stick because of the American Revolution war debt and that the government should’ve taken a different approach in solving the matter.

3. The primary sources that Bouton used in his article came from the county dockets from Berks and Westmoreland. These dockets helped Bouton’s argument by showing the numbers of lands seized by the local government or how high the debt was that farmers owed. Another primary source that was used was the York County Petition. The York County Petition is important because it is a written document signed by farmers that are petitioning the government not being equal to the famer’s lands.

4. Bouton would challenge the textbook that the Economic crisis came from “rural insurgency” (Bouton 857). The textbook states that Shay’s rebellion “as a conflict pitting poor against rich” (Out of Many 194). The rebellions were not fights between the poor and rich, they were struggles for the farmers to voice and express their thoughts. Bouton says that the farmers would made well-devised defense strategy and they had backing from other farmers that were willing to make the economic sacrifices for political gain. He says that the “rural insurgency” caused the economic problem to become more of a political problem for the rural farmers to fight for.

5. Overall, I thought the article was well-argued and very persuasive. Bouton does a great job by detailing each argument he brought up and supporting it with evidence. For example, “For instance, Cumberland County received $8,000 to lend its residents at a time when county taxpayers owed the state approximately $59,000 in paper money back taxes and $140,000 in specie. Thus, because the currency  circulated largely in Philadelphia and since farmers were assessed new taxes to redeem new money to which they had limited access, the average farmer found money even more scarce despite the new emission12”(Bouton 863). One disturbing fact I found was that, “in the seven years after Pennsylvania ratified the federal Constitution, the number of attacks on public officials in those counties nearly tripled, reaching sixty-three separate incidents of violence” (Bouton 881).

Blog Assignment 3- Campbell

1. In Jacqueline Campbell’s, “The Most Diabolical Act of the Barbarous War’: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Burning of Columbia, February 1865,” she explains the happenings of the women of the South during the destruction of Columbia, South Carolina. Most of the Southern women during that time took a different role than being just wives and caretakers of the family. The women in Columbia, South Carolina actually started to resist the Union troops and defend their homes. The actions the Southern women were making shocked all the Yankees up North and the soldiers started to view the women differently. These actions by the Southern ladies actually helped spark the new perception of viewing women differently and helped women become more recognized in society in the future.

2. In this entire article, Campbell really stressed on how the women of the South were so “devoted to the Confederacy” and started to gain their “female honor.” As Campbell describes, “Many used the moral authority commonly ascribed of their race and class to stop soldiers in their tracks” (57). The women may have lacked in overall strength, but their mind games they would play on soldiers really did more damage than using physical strength. The Union soldiers would be worn out mentally because the Southern women would stare at them fiercely without saying a word when the soldiers would rummage through households or take their belongings. This act of retaliating made the Southern women feel more superior and start to build a sense of moral. Campbell concluded that “men and women did not have two different l or oppositional sets of values, but, in fact, shared many of the components that made up the will to fight” (66). She concludes that women in the South started to become a vital part to society that their views and beliefs were not separate from men, but the same, which started to boost the recognition of women in the near future.

3. Campbell uses a lot of primary sources like Drew Gilpin Faust or Grace Elmore. I think it was wise to use Grace Elmore’s diary so that Campbell could relate to a personal account during that time period. Drew Gilpin Faust is used at the beginning of her paper, but really strays away from Faust because I think Campbell doesn’t necessarily agree with him.

4. Campbell addresses the ideology of “true womanhood” by commending the women of the South for all their effort for being supportive, loyal, and true to the Confederacy when some or many didn’t have everything going in their favor. Most of the women used facial expressions with “silence and with unblenching cheeks” as a tactic to make themselves heard amongst the Union troops (58). In our textbooks, Out of Many and Constructing the American Past, they talk more about the different classes of women and the hardships that was suffered in the lower class. The upper-elite class of women had no problem of paying their husbands to get out of war or not suffer of starvation, but the lower class of women did. Campbell and the textbooks both show that even though the women of the South might have been loyal, the certain classes of women either had an advantage or disadvantage in their fight.

5. Campbell uses Emma LeConte in her article to incorporate “true womanhood” and “female honor” into her argument about the Southern women to the destruction of Columbia, South Carolina.  Emma LeConte writes, “We would go and fight too- we would better all die together” (64).  This is showing the changing perception of the Southern women showing that they believe that they should be able to stand up and fight. Campbell disagrees with Faust’s argument on if the Southern women’s disillusionment with and growing resistance to the war played a significant role in the Confederacy losing. The women’s actions really did not play a huge part to affect the outcome of the war. I think Sherman’s attack didn’t constitute a “total war”, I believe it was just an unnecessary attack that shouldn’t have happened. Sherman’s attack destroyed a lot of homes, cultures, and communities, but it also really created a new voice of “true womanhood” and “female honor.”