Christopher Columbus unwittingly began one of the most thoughtful revolutions into the history of the world when he discovered America in 1492. This discovery was a milestone into the greatest transformation that has continued to puzzle the world to date. Among the historical transformation of America is the commonly known Spanish conquest of America- the New World and its rise and establishment of a lasting empire. This was after a series of battles with the Indians and the Aztecs for dominance and hegemony in the New World. One of the fiercest battles the Spanish fought before colonizing the wider areas of the Americas was that which involved the Aztecs and in which they won despite the size of their army. They established an empire historically regarded as one of the largest-larger than even the ancient Roman Empire1.The ability to conquer Aztec has continuously remained a mystery for scholars who wonder how it became possible for a small army to conquer a multitude of forces. This paper seeks to point out the single most important factor in allowing the Spanish to defeat the Aztec Empire and the reason as to why this happened.
The Spanish Cortez was able to conquer the Aztec Empire due to a number of reasons. This victory was possible despite the fact that the Spanish army was few numbering about 508 compared to the large Aztec forces. The Cortex’s historical military dominance helped them conquer Mexico. Since it was known for the large-scale production of steel, cavalry, and firearms, they had an advantage against the Aztec who had never seen powerful machines and cannons. In their possessions were spikes, Toledo steel, and swords that were durable and sharper than those of their combatants. This frightened the Aztec. To add to their advantage was the system of routine fighting in which they approached the Aztecs as a common enemy and with diverse backups, unlike the Aztecs who employed old systems like the Iberian. These regimented fighting techniques made them less vulnerable to sustaining fatal injuries as they also used armors to protect themselves against Aztec’s dangerous swords.
Decades later at the beginning of the American Revolution, Americans began to realize a sense of unity and identity as a new nation. However, the ideal colonial unity was far from the reality due to many factors. For instance, there was strong growth of resentment among the American colonists. However, everything took center stage when the colonies began to realize the importance of unity in order to fight for sovereignty from Britain. Colonial unity was thus seen as a tool necessary for the achievement of the struggle for liberation. During the French and the Indian wars, Americans used the situation as a platform for showcasing their solidarity as colonies since they were fighting alongside the British who emerged victorious afterward. The British made it an obligation for the American colonies to participate in the war because it was a litmus test for the British superiority abroad. Had the French won, it would have been an absolute loss to the Britons. The engagement into the war was equally significant for the American colonies as it marked a milestone for engaging in a common activity for the good of the nation and, therefore, it contributed towards the expansion of their territory under the British control2.
American colonies also began to identify themselves as a united nation due to the distance between Great Britain and America. The Atlantic Ocean in particular was a factor that assured the colonies that Britain would soon lose its grip on the New World because, in actual sense, the Atlantic Ocean made the British operations and exercise of authority into the American colonies very cumbersome. The three thousand miles, an eternal barrier, was thus instrumental in the growth of American identity.
Nevertheless, the British government took numerous reforms in attempts to firmly have all the American colonies under its rule. For instance, in 1763, the British passed the Proclamation Act which was geared towards preventing the eruption of any war with the Native Americans as it would be detrimental to her economy. This Act put a restriction on the European settlement, which required that they were not to settle along the Eastern side of the Appalachian Mountain. To further apply their authority, the British council passed another Act that restricted Americans from using paper money as a measure of legal tender in loan borrowing. More alarming were other laws passed such as the Sugar and the Quartering Acts which stipulated that colonial assemblies were to make provisions in form of housing and other supplies for the colonial masters’ troops3. Plans were also underway in Britain to impose a direct tax on the colonist. These propagated resentments within the colonies and therefore promoted a fresh sense of solidarity.
In retaliation to the laws passed, educated elites mounted a series of attacks on such policies. Guided by major intellectual traditions, they challenged the rationale in the declarations of such policies as they were not in line with the provisions of the English common law that defended subjects against any arbitrary imposition of acts by other foreign governments.
The opposition of the Stamp Act by the colonists started shortly after an incitement by Patrick Henry who begged the House of Burgesses to condemn it. Within the same period, Massachusetts’s head of assembly officiated over a meeting attended by nine out of the thirteen colonies with an aim of repealing the Stamp Act. The majority of investors within the 13 colonies called for a mass protest in which they swore not to import British goods as such laws were regarded as illegitimate.
The colonists’ revolution even became stronger and a number of reprisals followed the passing of the Townshend Act. This act required that most valuable goods such as glass and tea were to be taxed. British troops were immediately deployed in the area to disperse the rioting crowd resulting in several deaths. In response to these protests, most taxes were withdrawn leading to a reduction of the existing tension between the colonists and the British government.
The identity and unity of the American people coalesced in their fight against the British. During this war, the colonists once again showed their ability to unite regardless of their race, economic, and social affiliations to defend their territory. Most of the colonies comprised the Dutch, Jewish, and even mixed groups who stood for their identity as Americans.
During the period of war leading to the independence of America from the British colonial rule, all Americans participated in the revolution including the black slaves. The history of slavery is one of the oldest, worst, and most shocking relationships within a society. Slaves were considered as the basis for one’s wealth in antiquity. However, in the British American colonies, the slaves trade was used as a way of achieving the highest capitalist economy. The British used slaves in the production of raw materials for their industries. They worked on farms producing tobacco and other staple foods.
Despite the struggle for the emancipation of American territory, black slaves were not in a better position to enjoy their rights as Americans. In the beginning, due to the decrease in number and the increasing demand to grow cash crops, the British took Indians into captivity but they later shifted their search to other indentured slaves and poor Irish whose desire to enjoy a better life in America made them work as slaves for the colonialists.
The rights of slaves began to be advocated for after American independence under what was termed as the abolitionist movement which aimed at the complete liberation of all slaves. Putting an end to racial discrimination was a concern for the abolitionists whose policy was to terminate the slave trade. Their ambitions were parallel to those of the anti-slavery advocates whose major aim was to make an end to slavery, a slow and gradual process. The anti-slavery advocates wanted to put restrictions on existing areas or space in order to limit the spread of the slaves.
The abolition of the slave trade was further fueled by religious fervor during the Second Great Awakening. Acting on religious ground, religious leaders condemned the practice as inhumane, a terminology which did not augur well with the religious leaders from the South. This led to the beginning of the civil war in the 1830s. It is, however, important to acknowledge that even though there was strong antipathy for the slave trade when America was struggling for independence from British rule, the abolitionist movement emerged strongly in the 1930s.
The end to slavery was marked by many challenges and interpretations of the law and the Bible. It is even more surprising that the church was equally divided on the subject of the abolition of the slave trade as did some cultures4.Many Christian denominations borrowed some Biblical principles that the slave trade was not as bad as people made it to appear and that the practice was a result of the status of mankind. On humanitarian grounds, the slave trade was widely frowned upon as a poison to the community that held such practices. This is one of the reasons that led to the intense support for the abolition of the slave trade. From the 12th towards the 19th Century, even more, affirmative measures were put in place to ensure that slavery was completely gotten rid of as it was not in line with the principle of justice and human charity.
Slavery was entrenched because it was practiced and orchestrated all over the world and the rate of economic benefits improved proportionately with an increase in the number of slaves. It, therefore, became a challenge to root out slavery at once. Slaves helped in the production of cotton, tea, and other major cash crops that gave economies a promising outlook. The United States, for instance, was getting almost a million tons of cotton, produce that was made possible by the slaves. With the high economic benefits, slaves were associated with, the prize of their freedom was bound to be too expensive5.
Bibliography
Davis, David. The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Noll, Mark. The Civil War as a Theological Crisis. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006.
Norton Mary Beth. A People and a Nation. Connecticut: Cengage Learning, 2003.
Footnotes
- Beth Norton Mary, A People and a Nation (Connecticut: Cengage Learning, 2003), 144.
- Beth Norton Mary, A People and a Nation (Connecticut: Cengage Learning, 2003), 145.
- Mark Noll, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006), 38.
- David Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 65.
- David Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 79.