Montezuma’s Greeting to Hernan Cortes
When the Europeans finally got to meet the notorious King Montezuma, he did not show a single sign of fear. Rather, he greeted them as kinsmen, or maybe even Gods, opening the doors to his kingdom and inviting Hernan Cortes to share the wealth of his people. He led Cortes to his house and offered him the throne as a sign of his inferiority to the Europeans. He further showed his good intentions by providing many gifts in the form of cotton garments, shells, and gold. As he and Cortes sat down he shared the old stories of his people to inform Cortes that they have been waiting for the people from the east to come back and rule the kingdom of Mexico. He told Cortes that his people believe that the European had come from the original leaders of the American land and that they will therefore recognize them as superiors. Montezuma had thereby used the Aztec history to define these “others” in his own image. Cortes might have been a bit confused by the generosity of the legendary Aztec emperor. The Aztec were rumored to be an aggressive people who ruled by force and It seemed that Montezuma was aware of his reputation as he addressed the subject in their meeting. He might have been concerned that the tales could cause the Europeans to fear him and in turn meet his people with hostility. It seemed important for him to show the Europeans that he is willing to cooperate and he further proved the point by referring that he is made of flesh and bone just like them. It seems interesting that the king should give over his throne so willingly, but Montezuma might have known that he would be unable to defeat the Europeans and therefore protected himself and his people by attempting to pacify Cortes.
Document Interpretations
I found it interesting to read these documents from the past. Especially when trying to understand how the writer felt at the time and what sircumstances made him or her act in a certain way.
Remarks of Chief Powhatan to John Smith
Elizabeth Springs, Letter to her Father
Crevecoeur, Letters From An American Farmer
Virginia Nonimportation Resolutions, 17 May 1769
George Washington to Robert Morris
The declaration of Sentiments
The proclamation of Neutrality 1793
Gen. Jackson and the Six Militia Men
A Ballad - Tune Chevy Chase
The Confederate Constitution
Manifest Destiny
Stephen A. Douglass, Debate at Galesburg, Illinois
In 1608, the Powhatan requested that John Smith’s men would not visit his people armed. He argued that their guns frightened the Native Americans, and that it changed the Native American’s outlook on the English as if they were trying to hunt them. He tried to convince John that there is much more to be achieved through love then force. Overall he seemed concerned that the Algonquian and the English could not coexist in peace. He appealed to John by telling him about his previous experiences of war and how he did not wish the same situation upon the next generation. The Algonquian and the English benefited mutually from trading with each other, however Powhatan pointed out that if the Indians were forced to flee, the English would no longer benefit from the trade. Powhatan urged John to consider that without the food supplied by the Native American’s, John and his men would surely starve.This statement did not sit well with John who assured Powhatan that they were not in dire need of the Algonquian supplies. He further pointed out that he saw no difference in the Native Americans carrying their weapons in the English village from the weapons that they brought to them. Suffice it to say, the message of peace, love, and harmony did not translate to John Smith, and the traditional views of the situation between the settlers and the native american as a tense and difficult relationship are consistent with Pawhatan’s remarks.
For most Indentured servants, their servitude was the price they had to pay for the passage from the main land to America. This was also the price Elizabeth paid to relocate from England to Maryland. As stated in the beginning of her letter, Elizabeth was clearly exiled from her family and had taken the voyage across the ocean in hope of finding a better life. This is shown by her starting her letter by asking for forgiveness for even writing her father at all. In her letter from 1756, Elizabeth writes her father for aid in form of clothing. She tells him about the horrible conditions of the servants and the enslaved people, conditions that she had never imagined when first venturing out. These conditions include little to no clothing, very little food, whippings, sleeping on the ground, and labor intensive work.
When J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur begins to compose his essays about his life as an American farmer he seems uplifted by the intellectual revolution in the mid eighteenth century. His focus is on the liberty of the farmers and the modern society in witch knowledge and reason is appreciated. In Hector’s letter he portrays America as a melting pot of Immigrants from countries in Europe. While this portrayal is true to a certain extend, as many immigrants from these countries were the settlers seeking to create a new life in the new world, yet he distinctly leaves out the presence of Native American peoples as well as the enslaved people and the indentured servants from the main land. This shows that he may not have considered Native Americans to be “american”, and that an American is made by containing certain unique characteristics and qualities. Hector continues to describe the differences between lives of Englishman in europe, and this “new race” of American. He states that immigrants came from countries where they had very little, and were treated poorly. All of these people are then able to come together in a new land to work and earn their own life with relative equality amongst the people. This is in contrast to the European ways of life where the rich and nobility own everything, and the poor remain poor regardless of how much work they do. I believe that new way of life for Americans created unique and different character.
On the 17th of May 1769, the freeholders of Virginia decided that they would no longer live under the taxation imposed by the parliament of Great Britain. The Virginians were concerned that taxes were forcing colonist into a debt that could not be repaid, and compared themselves to enslaved people being owned by the British Government. Although they address the Majesty with “upmost respect”, they are letting him know that they have decided to implement a boycott on british imports. It states in the letter that they will not only boycott the imports with the newly enforced taxes, but will also promote and enact a boycott on the majority of all other british imports. The main objective of the resolutions was to have the taxes on tea, paper, glass, etc lifted. They believed the tactics of a boycott would be successful because the impact it would have on the merchants and manufacturers in Britain would cause the people in britain themselves to also want the taxes to be lifted. It is important to note that the Virginians should refer to themselves as enslaved people. It was within the mid 1760s that the attitudes towards slavery began to change in America, in no small part due to the fact they themselves began to feel enslaved by Britain. This and the constitutional ideas of liberty and equality had caused them to review their own policy on the enslaved people. They themselves realized that implementing your rules on other “men of God” was wrong and this only heightened their own feeling of being oppressed by the Parliament of Great Britain.
On April 12 1786, George Washington writes Robert Morris regarding a case of slavery liberation of one of Mr. Dalby of Alexandria’s enslaved people. A Society of Quakers had attempted to liberate one of his slaves and Mr. Dalby is now facing trial in Philadelphia. It appears to be Washington’s opinion that the enslaved person in question is not unhappy with his master but has been persuaded by the Quakers to seek independence. As the law stands in 1786 the person enslaved by Mr. Dalby is his rightful property by law. Washington has the upmost respect for the law and is upset by the unlawful acts of the society of Quakers. Washington makes sure to inform Robert Morris that he himself does not condone slavery, but as long as it is the law they have to abide by it, and that the only true change that can be made must be done so through litigation. He explains further that he himself would like to change the existing law and forbid the enslavement of another human being. Many contemporary Virginians were freeing their slaves in the late 18th century, however George Washington himself did not free his slaves until after his death, through his will. It appears that Washington believed in freeing the enslaved people but believed more in respecting the current policy of the state. Washington is saying that freeing happy and content slaves can potentially do more harm than it does good because it could leave enslaved people free but discontent with their new life, and owners of these enslaved people would be left with resentment and potential financial burdens. Another potentially harmful economic side effect of the Quakers actions was that if people found out that the society is persuading enslaved people in the City to become free, they will stop coming in fear that they could lose their “property”.
In 1793 president George Washington issued a proclamation urging the American people to stay neutral in the war between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain, and the United Netherlands on the one side and France on the other. After France declared war on Britain in February of 1793 Washington was unsure weather the Treaty of Alliances from 1778 would force America to side with France. At this time Britain was one of America’s most beneficial trading partners, and to avoid a situation that could damage the American commerce, Washington wanted to stay neutral in the war. He therefore states in his proclamation that there will be legal proceedings against any American providing assistance to the countries involved in the war. Moreover he makes it a point that the United States will not protect any Americans who aid the nations at war. Having to aid a person who has chosen to aid either side would cause America to get involved which, is what Washington was trying to avoid and would therefore be a bad move on his part. In his proclamation Washington stresses the law and informs the people that he has instructed officers in the states to uphold it. The people of the French Revolution were very outspoken on their republican views and had turned the cause of liberalism violent. Washington himself favored federalism as his actions had shown during controversies such as Jay’s Treaty, and America had it’s own Republican voices who wanted more liberty to the people. He feared political excess and might have feared that the french republicans sparked a similar fire in the American republicans to the point where they would aid them in their protests overseas.
In this ballad written by Chevy chase in 1827, he tells the sad story of six American Citizens who were drafted to fight in the war of 1812 against the British. The men left their daily jobs in Tennessee and went to fight in the war for three months as ordered by the congress. He describes how the men count the days till they can be united with their families again and how they leave thinking that they will be united with them soon. On their way home the men are ceased and brought to prison as General Jackson claims their time of service is six and not three months. The men are then trialled in court without any defense and found guilty of mutiny towards the captain, as well as desertion of their post. To the mens horror they are sentenced to death and shot four days later. The last two verses in the ballade refers to present events and addresses the situation of politics in 1827. “And God forbid, our President This Jackson e'er should be”. Back in 1812 Andrew Jackson was appointed a Major General and helped force the British to leave New Orleans. In the present day of 1827 the same man, Jackson, was one of the favorites to be elected to president against Adams. I think the ballade is designed as propaganda against Jackson as a way of undermining him in the election. In the 1820’s and 1830’s the democratic spirit had become a part of the people and was expressed in many art forms such as poetry, theatre, and music. Because the people were becoming more involved in politics the candidates became more outspoken and colorful in their campaigning, maybe even turned to song as a part of their campaign for the people.
In 1848, during the Seneca Falls convention, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and her followers rejected the Cult of Domesticity, and a document which would be know as the Declaration of Sentiments was created to demand the acknowledgment of women’s rights. The issue of women’s rights had come into play as Luceretia Mott, an anti-slave activist, had been denied to speak at the world anti-slavery convention in London, even though she was an official delegate. Working for the rights of enslaved people, but not having your own right to state your cause, must have been a humiliating and rude awakening to the need to fight for her own rights as well. Her fellow anti-slavery activist, Elizabeth Stanton was the principal author of the Declaration of Sentiments, which she wrote using the model of the US Declaration of Independence. The parallel drawn between the two documents clearly puts forth the irony of how the men felt when they first sent the Declaration of Independence to the British government, and thereby forced the men to recognize the feeling of oppression felt by the women. The Declaration of Sentiments clearly states the demands of the women in it’s last paragraph, and it reads “we insist that they(women) have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of the United States.” At a time when women were viewed as crucial for the well being of the family, keeping the man away from the bottle, and raising a child with good moral standards, some people might have feared that messing with the ideology of the “separate spheres” would ruin the harmony of the family and with it maybe even the harmony of the society. Further more, suddenly giving half the population the right to vote might have an effect on politics that the men wanted to keep control over.
In 1845, the editor of United States Magazine and Democratic View, John L. O’Sullivan, published Manifest Destiny. In this article he paints an exciting picture of the American people, how they were founded as a nation through equality, and how this founding was the sign of their future. He depicts a nation that came together with the goal of equality, a goal that O’Sullivan felt separated the United States from the other nations of the world. This though is continued when stating that the expansion of the United States was destined by the will of God. I think O’sullivan’s views do reflect reality for some Americans. At the time America expanded both in physical land mass, as well as internally through material growth and development. By saying that God wants the expansion, the Manifest Destiny justifies such actions as war against Mexico and removal of the native Americans. The industrial expansion however, had also created a new working class with lower wages and bad working environments. With a scarcity of money causing this new working class to live from paycheck to paycheck, it did not leave much opportunity for these people to embrace the american dream of bettering oneself and moving upwards. Not all groups in the United States embraced O’Sullivan's expansionist policies. While some politicians like James K. Polk, who was elected president in 1844, and represented the Democrats, supported the policies and ceased the chance to expand the territory by engaging in war with Mexico, other politicians from the Whig party rejected the policies and tension sparked between the two parties as the country engaged in war.
On March 11th, 1861, delegates from several states in the Deep South put forth the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. With the state of South Carolina in the lead, several states seceded from the “United States of America“ after the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. They feared what might happen to the “peculiar institution” as the newly elected president was in favor of gradual emancipation, leading them to decide to create their own country. To protect the institution of slavery in the Confederate States, the new Constitution mentions slavery several times. In Article l (18) Sec 9. (4) is states “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed”. This shows how the people of the confederate states fought harder for the right to own their own “property” then the rights of people, and how their views of African Americans were very different from the modern views of the Republican party at the time. Although the fear of losing the slave institution might have been what brought the south together in seceding from the union, the very few changes to the constitution suggests that they were not trying to create a new country with explicttly different values. When Lincoln was elected and the Republican party had majority in the white house, the south no longer had the protection of political majority. The republican party did not only represent the abolition of slavery, but they also supported higher tariffs and federal aid for internal improvements, which symbolised a modernisation that the South did not agree with. The subject of slavery was what could unite the states to make changes but the war seems to also have been fought because the south as a whole wanted to have majority and control in office, not just because of the one subject of slavery. The resebmlance to the United States constitution shows that the confederate states did not seek to create a new constitution. They just wanted to create a society that was like before Lincoln became president.
On October 7th, 1858, Senator Douglas gave another speech in the debate against Abraham Lincoln. He starts his speech by refering to the compromise measures of 1850 and the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, as well as the fight over weather congress should legalize slavery in the new states. To try and make the decision between having slavery or not in new states clear, the missouri compromise was made and was supposed to keep the state of Kansas and Nebraska free of slavery, but when Douglas decided to implement popular sovereignty, through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, in the two new states, he changed the previous compromise. His actions had set in danger the fragile compromise between the states that supported slavery and the states that wanted to abolish slavery. To the many northerners who saw slavery as a sin, he now had to stand to justify his actions. Douglas defended his actions by telling the people that popular sovereignty is more in line with the United States Constitution then the predetermined 36º30 line was. At the time of the Kansas-Nebraska act Douglas’ basic goal was to save the union, and so he tried to make all parties happy through popular Sovereignty. His own goal was to promote expansionism through the building of the railroad and the arguing over slavery in the new states would slow down the process. In 1854 he thought that introducing popular sovreignty would solve the slavery issue but as he felt now that he was facing reelection this was not the case.