Post #9 - Imperialism Risks and Benefits

What do you think of the American Imperialism we looked at this week? Are the risks of imperial entanglements worth the benefits?

I believe that, when assessing benefits and risks, perspective in key. For example, in the document we examined this week, the man was arguing for conquest of the Philippines. He stated that the founding fathers would be glad that the Americans took the land, but that was just his perspective. Not everybody believes in Jefferson’s glorious American Empire spreading democracy around, but for this person, it was a large benefit for the imperializing of the Philippines. It depends on what a country is attempting to get from the endeavor. For example, a struggling economy would be interested in the Philippines for the trade access with Asia, or an overpopulated country may be interested in sole expansion. In all of these situations, one aspect must still be assessed, which is the population of the conquered country. Assuming they will be opposed to a foreign invader, they will most likely fight for their homeland. The benefit of a stronger economy or a larger mass of land must be weighed against loss of life and the fact that the local population may never accept the conquerors. Loss of life is always a subject for domestic unhappiness, so that is another risk of it all. Essentially, in response to the question, I would say that it depends on the state of the country and the magnitude of the benefit, as anything from war to diplomatic sanctions could occur from engaging in imperial activity. To relate this back to the Philippines, would the United States have been fine without taking the country? Was it necessary for the continuation of the country? Or was it simply to better their standing in the world, regardless of the ensuing war with Spain?   

-Chavez Rodriguez 

Post #8 - Long Depression Impact

In class, we discussed how the Long Depression occurred right in the middle of reconstruction. I believe that it accelerated to demise of the project for a few reasons. First off, reconstruction was essentially over long before the depression. Grant's administration was corruptly handing out money for projects that never occurred or even started, meaning that the entire purpose of reconstruction was nullified. Additionally, the mindset of social and political equality went from a serious possibility to being seemingly impossible by the end of reconstruction. The Long Depression took projects that were unsuccessful and essentially never going to be completed, and took away their funding even more. It made the public skeptical of the results of the reconstruction projects, and made them and the banks keep their money rather than invest in the projects that would improve these conditions. Essentially, in economic terms, the reconstruction projects were finished before the depression, but the conditions simply deteriorated quicker with it. After the depression, when Hayes became president, the reconstruction period officially ended. However, before said depression, the results would be the same if it never had happened, just slower. Overall, I believe the depression did not reshape the course of the reconstruction, but it did hurry up the ending of it.

-Chavez Rodriguez

Post #7 - Freedman's Bureau

In class this week we learned about the formation of the Freedman's Bureau. This occurred in 1866, and the purpose of the bureau was to help freedmen find jobs, reconnect their families, and send people to school. The part that I struggle to understand is that there were only 1000 employees. I mean, how productive can 1000 people be in assisting around the whole country? Especially since they were so opposed? The comic in class showed us that not only was it an unpopular decision with white people, but the president did not support the bureau either. I'm wondering how effective this particular group actually was, given these simple facts. There were thousands and thousands of slaves released by the emancipation proclamation, so the magnitude of customers demanding aid had to be overwhelming. Additionally, I do not understand how the bureau could have helped freedmen find their families. There weren't databases that they could draw from, but only documents and written proof that they may not even have access to. And to receive this aid, freedmen needed to travel to the location of the bureau, as I would assume, unless of course there were multiple offices. Even if there were additional locations, those seeking the help of the organization who had no money, no place to live, and in many cases, no family had to make their way to a convenient location to check and see if the bureau could do anything to help them. In my mind, that seems unlikely to be very helpful, and not in the least bit efficient. Overall, do you think that the Freedman's Bureau was effective, and if so, how so?

-Chavez Rodriguez

Post 6 - "Rest in Peace"

In "The Cask of Amontillado" by Edgar Allen Poe, he ends the story with the phrase "rest in peace." We briefly began to discuss the meaning of this, but did not finish it. I believe that, like the previous examples of dialogue, this has multiple meanings and some irony. First off, it is ironic because Fortunado will most certainly have a rough time of slowly dying in a claustrophobic space, making it not peaceful whatsoever. Additionally, I believe that it refers to Montresor and his inner feelings. As revenge on Fortunado has become all that Montresor seems to care about, it also confuses me. He will be satisfied with the death of this man, but after it has passionately driven him for so long, will he really be at peace in the years following these events? What is his motivation now? We established that Montresor is rather psychopathic, leading me to believe that this will simply branch off into a different unresolved issue. On the other hand, the main character obviously had put a lot of time and effort into plotting Fortunato's downfall, and was very careful and patient during that time. So, the death of his "friend" may be a satisfaction that Montresor keeps with him and quells his insane tendencies. Overall, my question is, what happens to Montresor internally now, and did this murder truly satisfy him? We may discuss this at more detail further on in the week, but after reading the text through in class once, these are my thoughts. 

-Chavez Rodriguez

Post #5 - Cold Harbor Reaction

Earlier this week, we discussed the battles of Gettysburg and Cold Harbor. In the Battle of Cold Harbor, which occurred near Richmond, Virginia, the Confederate forces took the time to build fortifications, and yet the North still attacked. In fact, due to some letters we discussed in class, I know many Union soldiers were expecting to die. My question is, why did the Union commanders attack at all? If the rank and file soldiers even knew the odds of success, the leaders had to have known as well. Did the attack because they were overconfident? So sure that the South was ready to admit defeat solely because they were so close to Richmond? It seems as if, given the circumstances, the generals would have predicted this outcome, and held off from the attack. Instead, 7,000 people died in the first 50 minutes of the battle. A massacre of this magnitude must have been at least somewhat expected. If this was the case, not only would the Union forces be demoralized, but the Confederate forces would be more confident. All of the elements of the battle seemed to favor the South, including defensive positions, the fact that the attack was not a surprise, the morale, and the open field the Union had to cross. Overall, I struggle to understand why the attack occurred, leaving me to believe there were other factors, such as political ones, that influenced the decision.

-Chavez Rodriguez

Post #4 - A Modern War

In studies, we learned that the Civil war was the first modern war, as it was during the mechanization age. Due to technological advances, such as precision manufacturing and rifling, I understand this. However, the other parts that were new to the Civil war do not make as much sense to me. For example, the part where towns and cities were now more likely battle places and that citizen were caught in the conflict does not seem new. In the John Adams documentary, we saw that the city of Boston was caught in the crossfire and bombed by ships for days. So, by that standard, civilians had been parts of conflicts before. This also raises the question; were civilians and towns the target in the Civil war, or were they simply in the way of a more important resource? Additionally, when it is said that transportation and communication were improved, was it referring to organization as well? My first thought is no, as the Battle of Bull Run, which I learned about previously, contained a lot of confusion including uniforms, odd retreats, and people coming to watch the battle. In this sense, organization does not seem like a factor here, but it is important to remember that this example occurred early in the war, and may not be the best example of organization.

-Chavez Rodriguez

Post #3 - Mason-Dixon Line

In class this week, we explored the expansion of slavery through a series of maps and crucial events. We have discussed up to the Compromise of 1850, after which the stage is essentially set for a civil war. My question is, was the country destined for a civil war ever since the Mason-Dixon line? It came about in the Missouri compromise in 1820, and essentially split the United Sates into two separate peoples before the country even had all its territory. It made all future space above the line free, and all of the property below the line already slave states. Although the possibility of the South seceding was first brought up in 1846, they were already split 26 years before this. In terms of policy, they two areas were split by the Missouri compromise as well. Anything North of the line was to be free, and anything South of the line was to have slavery, already creating the notion that the North and South were not the same. As Lincoln said in a speech, "a house divided against itself cannot stand," and although this came later in history, the United States was in fact divided at this point in time. So what kept them from a war earlier? Was it that no one was prepared? Were the people not yet ready to go to war yet? Did most believe that war was avoidable? Now, its hard to understand what people were thinking over 150 years ago, but it seems like the problem was beyond repair by this time, and that the "compromise" did not in fact solve this issue.

Post #2 - Middle Passage

After reading this passage over in Lit. class, the first thing I noticed was how dark and depressing it was. In comparison to Equiano, which isn't extremely dark in the first place, it uses more imagery to paint a picture. For example, the section where the author (who is unknown to me at this time) describes the disease Ophthalmia discusses blindness, getting rid of the blind, and the fear that came with the disease. This is a darker point of view for a slave ship than we have seen before, and it is from a person who was not there as a slave. To me, this was very odd. It seems like those who are not in chains, packed in tightly, not fed, and not beaten would be happier. He also refers to a fire that is somehow started, and vividly describes the effects of it. That section posed another couple of questions for me, such as how did the fire start in the first place? Did the slaves start it to escape the misery of a slave ship? Was it one person's carelessness? Overall, the plot of this poem so far has quite a few things that don't seem to add up, and I am wondering what the author will chose to include details-wise later on in the text. Darkness aside, this document is essentially a counterpart to Equiano, as they sort of fill in the limitations for each other. We see a separate mindset in this person's view, and it helps us to understand life on a slave ship even better. 

Chavez Rodriguez 1B

John Adams Documentary - Colony Support

In the video, one conversation interested me but was not discussed in class. That bit is when John Adams is arguing with the man who believes that peace is the only option, and any kind of revolution is a terrible idea. This man also states that he wanted to get his colony, Massachusetts perhaps, away from the rebellious people of Boston, possibly implying secession. I considered what would happen if that had actually happened, and found it hard. Now, I believe that the revolution would have failed, had it even occurred in the first place. The support required for a war where the rebels are under trained, ill-supplied, and the enemy is strong is massive, and without all the colonies being united in the decision, it would be very hard even to begin such a revolution. After considering the other options, I realized how frustrated Adams must have been, knowing that he had to convince the rest of congress before he could enact any revolutionary activity. This also helped me understand why some of the members believed in breaking away from Britain, but did not say so openly. While arguing, Adams gained a reputation as an enemy to a lot of people. So, other congressmen refused to openly support revolution to protect their status, so they could wield more political power the next time a major vote occurred. Overall, I believe all the colonies had to support each other for the revolution to occur, and to do this, many at the conference tried to gain more influence.

Chavez Rodriguez 1B