Surviving Master's-Level History Programs at Norwich University: A ...

Some of the seminars lectures in the Norwich Masterof Arts in Military History program are historiographicessays. A historiographic essay by Professor JohnGrenier has been included in this survival guide as anexample. This essay is a weekly lecture from our USMilitary History seminar.MMH 550: American Way of War Week 2American War for Independence, 1775-1783By John Grenier, PhDWhen considering the historiography of the AmericanWar for Independence (AWI), we need to keep inmind that the conflict occurred in the context ofthe American Revolution, a distinct but interrelatedevent of the war. Too often, students think that theycan talk about the Revolution and the AWI as thesame event. The historiography of the AmericanRevolution encompasses the political, intellectual,cultural, and social aspects of the American strugglefor independence, which some historians begin as earlyas 1765 and end as late as 1789. The historiographyof the war proper, in which we are more interested aspractitioners of military history and students in a MAprogram in military history, brackets the years between1775 and 1783. Of course, works of the “new militaryhistory” and the War and Society approach have greatlybroadened our understanding of all the aspects of theRevolution including military, but they have done sofrom the starting point of the war as opposed to thenon-military catalyses of the larger movement for (andconsequences of) independence.Nonetheless, any student who does not understandthe broad historiographic “lay of the land” on theRevolution cannot hope to master the nuances ofthe historiography of the military struggle. It istherefore imperative that you, as a graduate student,be able to speak to the basics of American Revolutionhistoriography. What follows therefore is anintroduction to that historiography. From that point,we will move on to works that specifically addressthe military aspects—the battles and campaigns; theorganization; the strategy, operations and, tactics; andthe leadership/personalities—of the AWI.Naturally, Americans expressed a keen interest inthe Revolution in the years immediately followingindependence. William Gordon published the firstproper history of the Revolution in 1788, a mere fiveyears following the Peace of Paris that officially endedthe war. A dissenting minister, Gordan (Gordon) LNplaced blame for the Revolution on the British crown’sattempts to usurp the colonists’ rights and liberties asEnglishmen. David Ramsay, a participant in the war,followed and noted that the colonists, by the period ofthe Revolution, had created their own forms of libertyand government, and in many ways were destinedto rebel if only to realize the promise of Americanexceptionalism. The inference that you can take fromthose early works, at the very least, is that Gordan andRamsay’s works stand as the genesis for a “nationalist”lens through which to view not on the Revolution, butall American history.Taking that nationalist cue, antiquarian historiansfocused most of their attention on the actions of the“heroes” of the Revolution. Mercy Otis Warren’s bodyof work, as well as “Parson” Mason Locke Weem’s Lifeof George Washington (1801), point to the importanceof the handful of “Great Men” that led the Revolution.Little more than secular hagiography, the earlybiographies of the Revolution’s leadership furtherengendered the notion of American exceptionalism.George Bancroft’s History of the United States (1834-1874) best exemplifies the resultant “Whig School”that defined the Revolution as the search for and themanifestation of liberty. Bancroft’s massive body ofwork outlined a course of national development fromarbitrary monarchical rule to self-government andfreedom. For the Whig School, “American Freedom”was divinely sanctioned … an early instance ofAmerica’s Manifest Destiny. It therefore did nottake long for the Revolution to fall into place as acomponent piece of the Turnerian interpretation ofUS history.34