The readings provide primary documents "letters" from Cortes and Diaz to give that authenticity of occurred in that time period. The pictures serve as visuals to help tell the story of not only the relationship between the Spanish and natives, but also gives insight into the natives cultural and religious practices. Cortes gives the illusion which is frequently mentioned in history that he has interest in changing the religious practices of the natives for their sake. In actually I can infer from all the readings that his only goal was to enrich his self, which aligned with Spain goal which was enrich themselves also. I've always heard of the greatness of Tenochtitlan, but didn't know its wonders rivals those of Paris, London, Madrid and other major cities in the world. There may be popular thought these natives had barbaric traditions, but in actuality at that time, many of their practices were considered modern or sometimes advanced. 

The questions I have is how do Mexicans today recognize Montezuma, Hero or trader? I also wonder if many Mexicans hold on to older traditions or religions, or did most of them keep their catholic practices in which the Spanish bright over. file:///C:/Users/coachchris33/Downloads/Introduction%20(002)%20(2).pdf

The reading also compares the English with the French motivations for colonization parts of North America. The main reasons for the English was profit, religious conversion and persecution, and overpopulation. No matter what problems the English faced in their early voyages and settlements, they made sure to shine a positive light on the situation. They wanted to eliminate any real rumors so they could gain support for more people settling in the Americas.  Overtime, cash crops were discovered which encouraged the movement of an large mass of people migrating from England. 
file:///C:/Users/coachchris33/Downloads/Peter_Mancall_Introduction-English%20Prmotion%20and%20Settlement%20of%20the%20Americas.pdf

This text was created to not only give background to the readers about the Migration and colonization of the English to the Americas, but also touch on various parts of their way of life after their arrived.  Each particular document breaks down the key aspects of a typical colonists life experience, along with the natives and African slaves. 

I wonder why there aren't many stories of English settlers moving on the other side of the Appalachian mountains? 

The Middle Colonies were located between the Chesapeake region and the New England colonies. Its location and the various culture that existed in it ensured it would have an unique history. Williams Penn writes a vivid description of the Native Americans in Pennsylvania. He examines topics of how they raise their children, how their government is set up. Penn's writing seem to insist that the Natives will be easy to work and live with. I believe with the tone of the letter, the audience was for the government in England. The letter could be to motivate more migration and investment to the colonies. He left all of the complications that came as their land was taken and conflicts in the other areas.  I wonder how much of the conflicts did the English know about? 

In New York, the Schenectady Massacre discusses more of a gruesome reality of the relationship with Natives and a conflict with two competing colonies. The Massacre represents the many times in American history where the Natives get caught up between the conflict of competing European colonists, and those conflicts usually turn out with an excessive loss of life for them. 

The Middle colonies had a diverse set if rules and religions. One would think the presence of various religions would give the area high toleration for each other. The Quakers who begin to migrate to the area weren't afforded that toleration. They faced major discrimination in the form of not being to elect their own officials to being imprisoned for their religious practices. Other negative issues faced the middle colonies such as Governors trying to arrest people for their views in the press and the execution and banishment of many African Slaves who may have been innocent of their charges. I'm guessing the courts had an abundance of credible evidence to justify executing all of the African slaves? 

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=4217

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=648

The secondary articles give a preview of the conditions which warranted the colonists to rebel against the British, the point of view of various groups, major events and turning points of the war, and its consequences. The documents include who was affected by this war and how the intervention of other countries help the colonists win their independence. The larger story behind this fight for independence so that we learn the lessons from yesterday today. The colonists had to band together to support a common cause even though they had major differences. The upper and merchant class had different reasons for rebellion than the middle and lower class, yet they came together for a common cause. The ideals from this rebellion are used today, and will be thought of during future issues in the U.S. I wonder if other British colonies in other parts of the world, heard of this rebellion at the time and were motivated to start their own?   
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/era.cfm?eraID=3&smtID=2

To stay with the theme of the U.S. dealing with political and economical issues I decided to examine the primary documents that kept up with that theme. In reviewing John Adams, I noticed that the U.S. economic problem had a lot to do with not having a large army or navy. Many of their merchant ships were hijacked by people from other countries. In this case Algiers and other North African states. It wasn't until the early 1800's when the Americans could put a stop to all of these incidents from occurring. James Madison's proclamation was to force all officials to put their efforts into suppressing any violent measures against the government. At the time Shay's rebellion was still fresh on everyone's mind. But it would take government reform to satisfy the rural people. One of those reforms which temporarily satisfied the more rural citizens was the 3/5ths compromise. I wonder would if the 3/5ths compromise would have never gone into effect would the southern states ever ratify the U.S. Constitution?

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=262
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=167

The newly independent Americans faced some fierce challenges after the American Revolutionary war. They had to deal with learning how to govern themselves along with dealing with the economic consequences of becoming an independent and physically geographically diverse country. Because each colony had a very weak connection to the other colonies, each state created their own state constitutions. The overall American government document was called the "Articles of Confederation". The Articles gave majority of the power to the states, which was an extreme form of government, but colonists wanted to get far away from a strong central government that was in England at the time. The colonies faced a very tough economic depression after the war. Not only were they in debt, but they also faced economic opposition from foreign countries. The dept caused a negative domino effect that reached most colonists. The poor rural farmers got hit the hardest. Many of them faced huge debts in which they usually couldn't overcome. While the colonists lost the British protection, the Spanish refuse to give up territory in the American west. Pirates began to raid American merchant ships, among other forms of sabotage to the American economy. 

   The Americans eventually understood that having a weak central government wasn't the answer. Shay's rebellion had a huge impact on how the U.S. Constitution. State officials understood to keep everyone unified they had to give everyone some type of voice. I wonder how quickly did the Americans began to build up their military to protect merchant ships and take the territory that was rightfully there's in the Western territory.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/era.cfm?eraID=4&smtid=2

Those political alliances had ever lasting affects on the U.S. One of the political groups  favored a similar style in which they experience in Great Britain, the other group wanted no parts of that style and favored more of an independent states/ agrarian type of government. The U.S. President election of 1796 was very controversial. The rules of the election were very different compared to the rules today. 

I believe the purpose of the secondary articles was to explain the many issues the U.S. faced when developing a newly independent country. I also believe it was to give us the road map of how we got to the politically divided country we are today Via economic issues, region, etc. At the time the U.S. Constitution was just created and starting to be implemented. There was a lot of issues with the interpretation of the document which cause new problems, but also gave new solutions! I wonder how would times be different today if there wasn't any major political parties?

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/era.cfm?eraID=4&smtID=1

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/era.cfm?eraID=4&smtID=2