Thread with excerpts from "The Oxford History of the American People" by Samuel Eliot Morison. Published 1965, perhaps at the very peak of postwar liberalism.
The author's qualifications, including meeting and talking with most US presidents of the 20th century.
On the Indians: big achievements in agriculture, but little in the way of political organization or unity, which allowed Europeans onto the continent. Some great men, especially among the Algonquins.
"It was a good thing for forebears that they had to fight their way into the New World; it will be a sorry day for their descendants if they become too civilized to defend themselves."
The disappointments of the New World, which seemed to have little to offer until Cortes conquered Mexico. New Granada (Columbia) a similar conquest to Mexico and Peru.
The principles of English colonization: Englishmen lost no rights moving across the sea. One of the motivations was relieving overpopulation in England.
Most English colonies started as private enterprises with communal ownership of land (because the colonists were employees, not because they were Communists). All switched to private property quickly to avoid starvation. This, along with women arriving, saved Jamestown.
The Powhatan attack on Jamestown, which killed at least 1/3 of the white population and nearly destroyed Virginia.
The English capacity for self-government: Puritans on the Mayflower drawing up the famous Mayflower Compact.
The Puritans were very English (both English liberties and English culture, especially field sports like horceracing), but unlike other European colonists, saw New England as home. The first use of the word "American" for whites was Cotton Mather in 1684.
The same pet names for cows were used in both Virginia and New England. Both colonies saw democracy as bad and preferred a mix aristocratic/democratic/monarchical constitution.
King Phillip's War in New England. Another genocidal Indian War, which came very close to wiping out the colony altogether.
The end of King Phillip's War, which wiped out most Indians in southern New England.
Bacon's Rebellion, which began with him gaining popularity by attacking local Indians (the wrong local Indians, as it turned out). "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" was the attitude of many frontiersmen.
Map of the settlement of English colonies. Still almost entirely east of the Appalachians in 1760.
Canada delenda est - Cotton Mather
Salem Witch Trials sparked by "the exhibitionism natural to young wenches." Pity we've forgotten that particular attribute of young women.
The pacifist Quakers, unwilling to kill Indians for their land, instead tricked them into signing away "as far away as a man can go in a day and a half."
Populations in 1700. All of the colonies were small, Quebec was tiny (6200 people).
Iron mills were banned by Parliament to aid British iron interests, but the colonists just ignored the ban. In 1775, there were more furnaces and forges for pig iron in the 13 colonies than in England and Wales!
Anti-inoculation sentiment in Boston... when half the non-inoculated died from smallpox.
The first Great Awakening, partly reviving the dying faith in New England among the Puritans.
Americans conquering Louisburg, the Canadian fortress which had repeatedly served as a base for the French and Indians (mostly Indians, with some French aid) to ravage northern New England, only to have it returned at the peace table. Colonial vs imperial interests.
The deportation of the Acadians over disloyalty to England. "It is almost impossible for two utterly different racial, religious, and language groups to live in one region, if one or the other is encouraged by some outside power."
Another step in American ethnogenesis: the English first called Americans "Americans" instead of "provincials" in 1741 during the War of Jenkin's Ear.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thread with excerpts from the 'Pretorians' section of TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1973). In 1821, postcolonial nation-building seemed easy; the only example was the USA. But the US was homogenous, well-led, free, and already had an identity.
Mexico was the reverse, with no history of self-rule, the criollo/casta/indio split, and no great leadership. The two major factions were the 'continuistas' (conservatives) and the 'reformistas' (liberals).
Mexico was the reverse, with no history of self-rule, the criollo/casta/indio split, and no great leadership. The two major factions were the 'continuistas' (conservatives) and the 'reformistas' (liberals).
Excerpts from TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1973) on the Mexican War of Independence. The Mexican criollos were far less impressive than their South American counterparts, and produced no leaders equal to Bolivar or San Martin.
Where the South American criollos quickly declared independence upon the French conquest of Spain, the Mexican ones dithered. Acting quickly, the local peninsulares coup'd the government and the criollos accepted it.
With the criollos basically accepting Spanish domination, leadership of the independence struggle passed to men like Miguel Hidalgo, who turned it from a (hopefully) bloodless coup to a social and race war.
Thread with excerpts from the Colonial New Spain portion of TR Fehrenbach's 'Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico' (1973). His view is that New Spain would have remained permanent divided and stagnant if not for the northern frontier.
The true frontier of New Spain was not the thinly-populated and stagnant (almost identical when the Anglos showed up as in the 17th century) New Mexico, but much further to the south, in the arid regions only a little north of the Valley of Mexico.
The frontier lacked civilized Indians who could be reduced to slaves, and was instead populated by energetic mestizos and criollos, working owned ranchos for a market rather than owning huge estates for prestige.
A few excerpts from "Years of Peril and Ambition: US Foreign Relations 1776-1921." Several terms from the Treaty of Paris, especially that Britain would abandon its Great Lakes forts and the US would have the right to navigate the Mississippi, were not upheld.
Americans who moved into Spanish Louisiana retained "allegiance to the United States and displayed open contempt for their nominal rulers." Imagine that.
An 1810, American immigrants to Spanish West Florida seized control of Baton Rouge, proclaimed an independent republic and requested annexation by the US, though this failed.
More excerpts on Colonial Mexico from TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood" (1973). Fehrenbach saw the discovery of silver in Mexico, mostly in the arid north, as a disaster, as it led to Spain administering Mexico as a loot box rather than developing the productive economy.
The thinly-populated, but silver-rich North became a military frontier.
The suspicious Spanish Crown gave those born in Spain, the peninsulares, a monopoly on offices (and commerce) in New Spain. As offices were the main route to upwards mobility, the local creoles resented this.
Thread with excerpts from the colonial Mexico portion of "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1973).
The Catholic Monarchs who united Spain reined in the aristocracy, abolished serfdom, disempowered the Castilian parliaments, and ended all noble presumptions to royal powers and revenues, creating a new bureaucracy (with a new army) to run the state loyal to themselves.
Spain combined this modern bureaucratic state and army with maintenance of privileges for the old nobility and an almost medieval religious mindset.