Search

The article is a criticism of the article "Entangled Histories: Borderland Historiographies in New Clothes?," by Jorge Cañizares-Esguerra. The author makes a point of examining the broader field of research into the period during which North America was colonized by England and addresses Cañizares-Esguerra's claim that areas controlled by the Spanish were somewhat ignored by the English and also states that the Chesapeake is the area in the U.S. that would most qualify as a "core" to the nation's expansion. The political career of Creek Native American Alexander McGillivray, who worked to gain rights for his people is noted by the author because of his "cultural ambidexterity."

The author proposes that historians examine the history of the British and Spanish Atlantic empires through the perspective "entangled" history rather than comparative history. The author believes that although historians use comparative history to rise above nationalistic agendas in Anglo-American and Spanish American historiographies, there are limitations in comparative history. The author claims that entangled histories are concerned with entanglements, or interconnections and mutual influences, in society, and not on the comparability of history. The author uses the history of the British and Spanish in North America and the story of British quartermaster Peter Vezian and black Spanish prisoner Francisco Menéndez to support his theories.

Discusses the geographical boundaries of Great Britain's legal jurisdiction in the Atlantic in 1772. Background on the decision of Lord Chief Justice Mansfield on the status of fugitive slave James Somerset; Relationship between violence and legal conflict; Views on British actions concerning conflicts of international law.

Discusses how the British greeted American independence. Reference to the signing of the peace treaty on November 30, 1782; Visual record of negotiations that ended the longest colonial war in British history which conveyed a message of inconclusiveness and ambivalence at odds with recognition of American independence; Attention which British historians have paid to both the fears and doubts occasioned by the American Revolution.