On this day in 1823, President James Monroe outlined his famous doctrine (which eventually became known as the Monroe Doctrine) opposing European expansion into the western part of North America. Before Congress, Monroe gave a passionate speech condemning any and all European exploration of western lands and called for a renewed commitment to American settlement into the west:
In the discussions to which this interest has given rise, and in the arrangements by which they may terminate, the occasion has been deemed proper for asserting as a principle in which rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European power. . . . We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them or controlling in any other manner their destiny by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.
As we all know, western expansion became a pillar of American strength throughout the 19th century. To "Go West" was as American a concept as apple pie. With that said, we would do well to remember that President James Monroe's passionate determination to safeguard western expansion from the clutches of European "invasion" was a bold pronouncement for that time. It may seem commonplace for us today, but it wasn't for the people of his day.
And as wonderful as Western expansion may have been for early Americans, it was a complete disaster for other groups, Native Americans in particular. What became known as "Manifest Destiny" in the eyes of Americans was nothing more than a fancy way of saying "conquest" for Native American tribes, who found themselves being continuously pushed further west. "Manifest Destiny" would eventually be used to justify war with Mexico (which, in reality, was one of the most unjustifiable wars in American history), along with other atrocities like the "Trail of Tears."
Of course, not all of the blame can or should be placed at the feet of James Monroe, who in my opinion is one of our most underrated presidents ever. Many other leaders (and lay folk) carry much of the responsibility for causing so much pain to Native Americans that, in some respects, remains to this day (President Andrew Jackson certainly comes to mind).
490 years ago, a group of ambitious Spaniards ascended the southeastern slope of the Sierra de Ahualco, a large mountain that overlooked the lush Mexican landscape. Upon reaching the stony top, these men gazed upon a civilization unlike anything that existed in Europe. Tenochtitlan, the native “Aztec” people called it, was a prosperous city nestled neatly into the beauty of the Mexican valley. The panorama of cultivated fields, irrigated by complex water networks was no doubt a charming sight to behold. Towering buildings adorned with gold glistened in the sunlight, enhancing the Spaniards thirst for plunder. Led by the ambitious Hernan Cortes, these Spaniards would stop at nothing in order to seize the riches that lay before them. Unfortunately for the people of Tenochtitlan, these first "explorers" from Spain would turn out to be the beginning of the end for their civilization. Their subsequent conquest and subjugation to the Spanish eventually led to the demise of the Aztec world and the continued rise of Spanish colonization in the "New World."
Over the years the story of Hernan Cortes has been both praised and scrutinized by a wide range of critics. Even his contemporaries were divided over the achievements Cortes had accomplished. Many considered him to be one of Spain’s greatest villains, while others were quick to call him a national hero. Amongst those that rose to defend the acts of Cortes and the conquest of "New Spain" was a poor peasant Spaniard turned conquistador named Bernal Diaz del Castillo. As a loyal soldier in Cortes’s army, Diaz became an eyewitness to the Spanish conquests of Mexico. In the latter years of his life, Diaz wrote his life experiences as a conquistador in his infamous history, The Conquest of New Spain. Though not always kind to Cortes, Diaz gives a predominantly favorable view of Spain’s most legendary conquistador, and the actions of the men that followed him. Over the years, however, the history of Bernal Diaz has been interpreted from many different perspectives. To understand the historiography of Bernal Diaz, a general inquiry into his motivations for exploration, combined with an analysis of how Diaz’s record was perceived by his contemporaries vs. its current historical significance, are essential components in appreciating the historical significance of Diaz’s work.
To understand the record of Bernal Diaz, one must first understand his motivations for becoming a conquistador. Spanish society in the sixteenth century was a world deeply divided by social and economic inequality. A massive number of Spaniards lived in the depths of poverty, expecting little chance to improve their social or economic status. As J.S. Elliot points out, "Cortes, along with the vast majority of explorers, belonged to an overpopulated social class for whom Spain had little to offer." Bernal Diaz also belonged to this low social class. Born in Medina del Campo, Diaz’s childhood was full of scenes of poverty and violence. Having been raised in such an environment, Diaz became acclimated to many of the violent struggles he would face in Mexico. Like Cortes, Diaz longed for the opportunity to make something of himself. The lure of New World conquest became the opportunity he longed for. Historian Rolena Adorno points out that for Diaz, "His primary goal was to achieve economic prosperity for himself and his heirs, and he was fairly successful."
Diaz, however, was not motivated exclusively by economic factors. Upon his arrival to the "New World," Diaz was overcome by the religious fervor that infected most of the Spanish. "Our desire was to throw their [the Aztecs] idols out of the temples, for they were evil and led them astray...we gave them a cross, which would always aid them, bring them good harvests and save their souls." The Spanish were easily able to justify these actions of religious bigotry and hatred. Since 1493 the Spanish (along with other European nations) lived under the delusion that the New World was in fact divinely theirs. With the discovery of the New World, Pope Alexander VI issued a papal decree that promised Spain all the undiscovered lands 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands. As a result, Spain was guaranteed its "legitimate" claim to colonize the New World. Queen Isabella even declared the inhabitants of the New World to be her "subjects and vassals."
With such powerful religious conviction behind them, Cortes and his band of soldiers had all the justification they needed to rationalize their brutality towards the natives. Seeing that the Aztecs "eat the flesh of roasted legs of Indians and the arms of soldiers”, Cortes and his men felt it their Christian duty to "purify" the heathen natives and their lands. Backed by the threats of execution, Cotes and his men obligated many native communities to "give up human sacrifice and robbery and the foul practice of sodomy, and to cease worshiping their accursed idols," or, "be absolutely prepared to fight and die." As a result, entire villages of natives were annihilated. As Diaz wrote, "We found the houses full of corpses, and some poor Mexicans still in them who could not move away. Their excretions were the sort of filth that thin swine pass which have been fed on nothing but grass."
The earliest trends in the historiography of Bernal Diaz and the conquest of Mexico have often praised the conquistadors for their remarkable bravery. In the middle part of the nineteenth century, William H. Prescott published his now infamous book, History of the Conquest of Mexico and Peru in which he stated, "The subversion of a great empire by a handful of adventurers...has the air of romance rather than sober history." Prescott interpreted the works of these early conquistadors (including Diaz) in a quasi-poetic fashion. Though occasionally critical of the conquistadors, Prescott gives a great amount of praise to the conquistadors in his narrative. Prescott also credits Diaz for his objective account of the conquest of Mexico. Many of these early interpretations of Spanish colonization were deeply influenced by a Western superiority complex that negated the concerns of native people. Whether in the fictional works of Shakespeare’s The Tempest, Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, or in the words of the conquistadors themselves, European supremacy was asserted to the highest degree.
Bernal Diaz’s work was also rarely scrutinized. Though not published until after his death, Diaz’s account of the conquest of Mexico was taken virtually at face value by the majority of European readers. Even William Prescott rarely challenged the accuracy or prejudice of Diaz. After all, Diaz was "among the writers who defined what was unique about Spain’s early experience in America." His work was seen as central to the historiography of Cortes and Mexican conquest. Questioning Diaz’s work seemed like a ridiculous suggestion for the early scholars of Spanish colonialism.
For the most part, the history of Bernal Diaz remained unchallenged even into the early parts of the twentieth century. Though often harangued on various mundane issues, Diaz’s history rarely received any direct attacks. The only disputations over Diaz’s history centered on various comments that were found to be, "exaggerated or misplaced." The only major issue in the historiography of Bernal Diaz had to do with his clash against the records of Bartolome de Las Casas and Francisco Lopez de Gomara. Both Las Casas and Gomara asserted that the actions of Hernan Cortes and his soldiers were utterly reprehensible, due to their barbaric acts of cruelty during the conquest of Mexico. Diaz’s record, however, seemed to eclipse the histories of Las Casas and Gomara by suggesting that the acts of Mexican conquest were never as destructive as some suggested. In his record, Diaz repeatedly mentioned how he and the other men "tired of war," almost suggesting that they fought because they had no other choice. Diaz also tried to diffuse the notion that he and his fellow soldiers reaped huge economic gains from their plunder. "We captains and soldiers were all somewhat sad when we saw how little gold there was and how poor and mean our shares would be." Of course Diaz neglected to mention the fact that he and others received enormous estates, titles and slaves upon the completion of their murderous rampage.
Recent scholarly inquiry into Bernal Diaz and the conquest of Mexico has made some significant changes to its historiography. As stated before, for centuries the conquistadors rarely received any direct challenge to their legacy. It was not until the latter parts of the twentieth century that the first major attacks to the historiography of the conquistadors were made. The initial question historians made concerning the conquest of Spain was, "is the conquest of Mexico justified?" For the first time historians began to read the words of Diaz in a new light. Instead of interpreting their actions through the lens of European prejudice, the conquistadors were exposed for what they truly were. The conquest of the Aztec civilization was no longer appreciated for its ability to spread Christianity or subdue the "heathens." Instead of being honored for their bravery in battle or glorified for their defense of Christianity, men like Bernal Diaz were recognized primarily for their greed. Though Cortes and his men, "delighted in their new great fortune," which came at the expense of the native people, and after "all the gold and silver and jewels in Mexico had been added together," the conquistadors still could not escape the fact that they were, in the end, thieves and murderers. For the first time, Diaz’s account was subjected to scholarly investigation and genuine criticism. Historians began to suggest that much of Diaz’s work was, "an attempt to keep abreast of the paste of events that profoundly threatened his economic well being." In other words, much of what Diaz wrote was done to defend his social and economic status, not to mention his reputation.
To be certain, Bernal Diaz’s The Conquest of New Spain has played an essential role in the overall historiography of Mexican conquest. It has provided us with an eyewitness account of the destruction, subjugation and assimilation of the native people in and around Tenochtitlan. Though clearly prejudicial and xenophobic in his approach to this historical event, Diaz’s record still remains an important (and hotly debated) primary source document of Spanish conquest. As the interpretation of Diaz’s work has changed over the years, scholars have been able to make significant changes to the historiography of Spanish conquest. Instead of being seen as stalwart Christian heroes, the greedy motives of the conquistadors have been exposed, and the true nature of Spanish conquest revealed. One can only imagine what future historical inquiry will reveal.
Every couple of years or so, the Curriculum Committee for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) presents to the general membership of the church a new study manual to be used in various church classes. For the past two years the church has used "Gospel Principles" as its official study manual. Before that, the church spent two years on "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith." And in 2012, the church has produced "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: George Albert Smith" as the official text for this year's study.
I'll be honest, spending the last two years on "Gospel Principles" was a bit of a personal drag. I just couldn't get into it. With that said, I am VERY excited about this year's manual. George Albert Smith has been my favorite church president for as long as I can remember. Ever since my youth, George Albert Smith has stood out to me. I recall learning about his personal creed and hearing stories of how he helped to bring the church into modernity in a number of ways. For example, G.A. Smith was a passionate supporter of the Boy Scout's program, and helped to integrate it into the Young Men's program of the church (he was awarded the Silver Buffalo in 1934, which is the highest honor in the Boy Scout's program). Smith was also a major history buff and helped to organize the Utah Pioneer Trail and Landmarks Association, was elected six times as vice-president of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, and dedicated the "This is the Place" monument and the centennial celebration of the Mormon Pioneer's arrival into the Salt Lake Valley. In addition, G.A. Smith was an ardent supporter of Teddy Roosevelt's "progressivism" (a fact that I am sure makes Glenn Beck sick to his stomach) and was a vocal advocate for the blind (he helped to push forward the first ever braille Book of Mormon in 1935). G.A. Smith was also the first president of the church to not practice polygamy. All of these facts and accomplishments helped G.A. Smith to lead the Mormon church into the world of modernity.
And though I greatly admire G.A. Smith for all of these (and other) accomplishments, this is not what makes him my favorite church president. What I admire so much about G.A. Smith was his "humanity." Don't get me wrong, I recognize that all church presidents have/had their human side as well. However, G.A. Smith, for whatever reason, seems more "human" and "approachable" than the others. After all, G.A. Smith wore his emotions out on his sleeves for everyone to see. He was an incredibly sensitive man who internalized the world and the struggles that people faced. He took it personally when he encountered individuals who were hurting or suffering, and did all that he could to assist those in need. He was a staunch supporter of the Church Welfare program and did more to advance it than perhaps any other church authority. For example, at the conclusion of WWII, G.A. Smith initiated one of the largest relief efforts in church history. A massive surplus of food, equipment and other relief supplies were made ready and available for the destitute people of Europe who had been left in ruins. When U.S. President Harry S. Truman finally called on the church for assistance, he was astonished to discover that the church was already prepared. All that was needed was to know when and where to ship the goods. Even in the aftermath of war, G.A. Smith understood the worth of every human soul. As he stated:
Let us extend kindness and consideration to all who need it, not forgetting those who are bereft; and in our time of rejoicing for peace, let us not forget those who have given their loved ones as part of the price of peace.
Not only did G.A. Smith preach tolerance and love for those of different (once enemy) nations, but he taught tolerance and acceptance of every member of the human race. G.A. Smith vehemently opposed racial prejudice and vocally denounced the KKK. He made efforts to reconcile bitter rival nations by reintroducing missionary work into parts of Europe and by reconciling church members of those nations. As he stated at the conclusion of WWII:
The best evidence of gratitude at this time is to do all we can to bring happiness to this sad world, for we are all our Father’s children, and we are all under the obligation of making this world a happier place for our having lived in it.
I would be a friend to the friendless and find joy in ministering to the needs of the poor.
I would visit the sick and afflicted and inspire in them a desire for faith to be healed.
I would teach the truth to the understanding and blessing of all mankind.
I would seek out the erring one and try to win him back to a righteous and a happy life.
I would not seek to force people to live up to my ideals but rather love them into doing the thing that is right.
I would live with the masses and help to solve their problems that their earth life may be happy.
I would avoid the publicity of high positions and discourage the flattery of thoughtless friends.
I would not knowingly wound the feelings of any, not even one who may have wronged me, but would seek to do him good and make him my friend.
I would overcome the tendency to selfishness and jealousy and rejoice in the successes of all the children of my Heavenly Father.
I would not be an enemy to any living soul.
But for a man who could empathize so well with the plight of humanity, George Albert Smith wasn't without his struggles. Aside from the many physical ailments that effected him throughout his life (vision problems, stomach ailments, and lupus erythematosus which eventually caused his death), G.A. Smith was also plagued by ailments of the psyche. As the good folks at the By Common Consent blog point out, George Albert Smith was a deeply emotionally afflicted man. We can say with almost absolute certainty that G.A. Smith suffered from some sort of chronic depression and anxiety disorder. There were multiple times in his life when he was rendered incapacitated by overwhelming feelings of inadequacy, guilt and sadness. His responsibilities as a church apostle often exacerbated his condition, as he found it very difficult to deal with the problems of those he encountered. As he confided to a local state president:
[Even] when things are normal my nerves are not very strong and when I see other people in sorrow and depressed I am easily affected.
Even members of George Albert Smith's family could tell that something was wrong. As BYU Professor Mary Jane Woodger points out:
George Albert’s “good work ethic” exposed him to additional pressures because of an apparent “personality style that lent itself to hypersensitivity,” manifest in a preoccupation with “what he ate along with a lot of pressure he seems to have felt to measure up to other’s expectations.”
[...]
Grandchild George Albert Smith V suggests that his grandfather struggled with depression, feeling incompetent, and being overwhelmed. There were times when “he just could not pull it all together.” Another granddaughter, Shauna Lucy Stewart Larsen, who lived in George Albert’s home for twelve years as a child, remembers that “when there was great, tremendous stress, mostly [of] an emotional kind, it took its toll and he would literally have to go to bed for several days.”
As someone who has personally struggled with bouts of depression and anxiety I can empathize with G.A. Smith's feelings. Depression and anxiety are real struggles that can render an otherwise normal and successful person completely vacant. It is a real struggle that you don't simply "pray away" or "get over." Unfortunately, too many people (even today) don't understand this fact, and in G.A. Smith's day there was even less tolerance for such conditions. As Professor Mary Jane Woodger notes, G.A. Smith's uncle, Heber J. Sears, demonstrated the ignorance of his day when he addressed his nephew's bout with depression:
For Heaven’s sake George -- side step or step backward not forward. Cheat the asylum of a victim. Dump your responsibility for a while before the hearse dumps your bones.
And though I am sure that Mr. Sears was only trying to be helpful, this type of "cowboy up" response is typical of many who don't suffer from or understand the realities of depression. This is especially true of times past when psychology was either non-existent or still in its infancy. I have blogged before about the "melancholy" nature of Meriwether Lewis (which in reality was probably bipolar disorder) and how it eventually drove him to suicide. And most people are aware of Abraham Lincoln's deep struggles with depression. These problems are nothing new to humanity, we just happen to recognize them now.
The fact of the matter is that humans are complex creatures who are, as a result of genetic, environmental and other factors, often susceptible to a wide variety of physical and mental struggles. Yes, even prophets (who are only humans) fall victim to such things, and why should any of us assume differently? Nobody seems to make a big deal of a church president who suffers the infirmities of age, sickness or injury. Why would mental illness make any kind of difference?
The real beauty of the life of George Albert Smith is the fact that he overcame these ailments and insecurities to change the world for the better. I think that the best example of George Albert Smith's "humanity" and goodness can be found in his handling of the "Third Conventionist" controversy. Most Mormon members are probably unfamiliar with this controversy, since it took place in the 1930s. The Third Convention controversy was a case in which a number of Mexican Mormons essentially chose to break off from the church and establish their own autonomy. The Mexican Constitution of 1917 had created a strict separation of church and state and isolated Mexican Mormons from church leaders in Salt lake city. In consequence, many Mexican members, led by District President Abel Páez, requested that the church call only full-blooded Mexican citizens to positions of authority within the country. When rebuffed by the church, these members elected to break away and created the "Third Convention", which held meetings, carried out missionary work and many other regular church functions without church approval.
Needless to say, this upset a large number of church authorities, not to mention many loyal Mexican Mormons. Many within the "Third Convention" were excommunicated in the wake of the escalating tensions between Salt Lake City and Mexico. Church leadership scoffed at the blatant apostasy that was taking place right under their noses. President George Albert Smith, however, had a different opinion. After making a trip to Mexico (the first church president to do so) President Smith met with "Third Convention" leaders and listened to their complaints. No judgements were passed, no fingers were pointed. As had become G.A. Smith's style he simply showed love and empathy for the people. In the end, President Smith reversed the excommunications and most of the Third Convention's followers were welcomed back as brothers and sisters of the church. Sure, President Smith was more than justified to spew out fire and brimstone rhetoric and to rebuke the Third Convention members for their betrayal of the faith. President Smith could have declared the Third Convention a heresy and made them an example to the church of the consequences of apostasy. Heck, President Smith could have avoided the trip to Mexico altogether, kept the excommunications in place, and simply ignored the situation. All of those courses of action would have been justifiable. Only one problem: they weren't what Jesus Christ would do, and President Smith knew it. Today Mexico is the second largest nation in terms of Mormon population. Would such be the case had G.A. Smith blown off the concerns of the Third Convention and other Mexican members in their time of need?
George Albert Smith is my favorite church president for one basic reason: he loved humanity. It didn't matter if they were good or bad, kind or mean, believers or non-believers. All humanity has worth and G.A. Smith knew it. His example is a lesson to every single member who feels the need to rebuke others. Whether it be a member who has "fallen away", a person with a disability or an individual in the depths of depression, George Albert Smith's example shows us the correct code of conduct to all humanity. I for one look forward to this year's curriculum on the life and teachings of a fantastic man, example and prophet.
------------------- Another way that George Albert Smith helped to modernize the church was via television and media. He was actually the first church president to broadcast his messages on television. I enjoyed this one because it not only shows G.A. Smith's joyous personality but also reveals how he was essentially a "bridge" between old school and modern Mormon preaching. President Smith's boisterous demeanor and use of hand gestures was common of 19th century preachers (including Mormons). You can tell in this video that G.A. Smith was clearly influenced by that style, but was also trying to also change the mold. This is good stuff. Enjoy:
A Brief History of Cinco de Mayo and its Important Role in American History
Happy Cinco de Mayo everyone!
With the recent controversy over immigration, this year's Cinco de Mayo celebrations have been obscured by political, social and racial tensions, all which have created a climate of animosity between two nations that actually share more in common than they realize. Now, it's not my intent today to weigh in on the current immigration issue. I know that both sides of this issue feel passionate about their views and believe they are justified in their respective protests. With that said, I ask that you check your politics at the door. This post isn't political in nature but instead focuses on the forgotten history of this day...a day that even Americans should be thankful for.
For whatever reason, most people think Cinco de Mayo is the Mexican independence day. Not so. Mexican independence day is actually celebrated on September 16th (this year will be the 200th anniversary of Mexican independence). Cinco de Mayo is a commemoration of an important battle that impacted both Mexico and the United States.
On the morning of May 5, 1862, while the United States was embroiled in its greatest crisis (the Civil War) Mexican forces under the command of General Ignacio Zaragoza SeguÃn soundly defeated a French invasion in what became known as the Battle of Puebla. This unlikely victory not only shocked the invading French, but it also sent sound waves to the North. American leaders (better put Union leaders) were overjoyed at the news that the Mexican Army had defeated the French. After all, the French had been unofficially favoring the Confederacy, hoping that a Southern victory would help to cripple the United States. In fact, President Abraham Lincoln was so concerned with the impending French invasion of Mexico that he granted permission to several hundred Union soldiers to join up with the Mexican military. Many Union leaders sincerely believed that America's future depended on a Mexican victory. It was no mystery that French Emperor Napoleon III, who detested the United States, hoped that the invasion, occupation and eventual domination of Mexico might serve to better supply the Confederacy and once again give France a legitimate presence in the Western Hemisphere.
It seems that Mexico, however, did not get that memo. The French invasion was forced to retreat with their tails between their legs, humiliated and soundly beaten by the "inferior" Mexicans. Their quest for conquest died a sudden death as did their desire to provide aid to the Southern Confederacy. This shift in momentum came at a perfect time for the Struggling United States. It is no mystery that the early part of 1862 was not a high mark for the Union. Robert E. Lee was on a roll, the South was still strong and the Union was in desperate need of a turn of fortune. Cinco de Mayo (or perhaps better put, the Battle of Puebla) gave them at least a small turn of that fortune. This shift in momentum was later coupled with the Union victory at Gettysburg (just 2 months after 5 de Mayo). Without the coveted French aid, Confederate forces eventually succumbed to the obvious superiority of the Union's resources and manpower.
Now, I'm not suggesting that those brave 4,000 Mexican soldiers (and the few hundred Americans who accompanied them at the Battle of Puebla) saved the United States. Nobody knows what would have happened had the French won on that day. Perhaps they would have been able to strengthen the Confederacy enough to give the Union a longer fight. Perhaps not. Nobody knows. But those points miss the main point: Cinco de Mayo matters to the United States. If Americans are able to embrace and accept the Irish St. Patrick's Day holiday, surely we have enough room to accept and embrace Cinco de Mayo. After all, it had a legitimate impact on our history. At a time when our nation was saturated with nothing but crisis, our southern neighbors gave us a hand. I think that calls for a day of celebration!
Everyone raise your Coronas and Tamales! Viva Mexico y Los Estados Unidos! Feliz Cinco de Mayo a Todos!
On this day in 1823, President James Monroe outlined his famous doctrine (which eventually became known as the Monroe Doctrine) opposing European expansion into the western part of North America. Before Congress, Monroe gave a passionate speech condemning any and all European exploration of western lands and called for a renewed commitment to American settlement into the west:
