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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Many of the Republican Synthesis historians owed anintellectual debt to the social and cultural historianswho preceded them. In the 1970s, with the rise ofinterest in “history from the bottom up,” scholarsbegan to examine the Revolution from perspectivesdifferent than those of the elites. Women, Loyalists,African-Americans, Indians, and frontiersmen, toname a few, all became the subject of studies. Theresult continues to be an avalanche of works on thepolitical, intellectual, cultural and social aspects of theRevolution. About the only high-level observation thatwe can make from that historiography is to note itsfracturing of the field. Grand narrative and overarchingthemes are difficult to discern. Instead, details andminutia in literally hundreds of specialized studies, asin most every field in American history, have becomethe norm.So, where does that put us in trying to make senseof the military historiography of the AWI? Generalstudies of the war abound, but frankly, only threeare really worth your attention as graduate students.Richard Middlekauf ’s The Glorious Cause (1982)and Don Higginbotham’s The War for AmericanIndependence (1971) are both excellent works, withHigginbotham’s work, although significantly older thanMiddlekauf ’s, having more a military history focus.Stephen Conway’s The War of American Independence(1995) offers the best short interpretation of the war, aswell as the best view of it from the British perspective.There is no shortage of battle studies of the AWI.Nonetheless, there exist a handful of excellentcampaign/battle histories by professional historians.The important point to remember about these isthat they focus on much larger themes than the“drum and bugle” approach to military history. DavidHackett Fisher’s Washington’s Crossing (2004), offersa compelling narrative, and more important for ourpurposes, profound analysis on the Trenton/PrincetonCampaign of 1776-1777. Other fine campaignstudies, albeit slightly formulistic, include RichardKetchum’s series of works on the major battles of thewar: Yorktown (Victory at Yorktown, 2004); Saratoga(Saratoga, 1997), LN and Bunker Hill (The DecisiveDay, 1974). His The Winter Soldiers (1973), likeWashington’s Crossing, focuses on Trenton/Princeton,and is what I believe to be the best of his books. Forthose who want to know more about the Southerncampaigns, Lawrence Babit’s A Devil of a Whipping(1998) and John Dederer Making Bricks without Straw(1983), if one can move past the latter’s ahistoricism(especially now that you have progressed throughSeminar 4) are insightful and useful studies. RussellWeigley, a name familiar to you all by this point in yourstudies, offered the Partisan War in 1970. It remainsan excellent account and analysis of the irregularstruggle in the Carolinas. No single volume adequatelyaddresses the frontier aspects of the AWI. JohnGrenier’s First Way of War (2005) touches on it, but isby no means the final word on the subject. An olderbut still excellent work that touches on the Southernfrontier is John Alden’s The South in the Revolution(1957).A handful of historians have taken the creation andorganization of the Continental Army as their focus.James Kirby Martin, Mark Lender, et al.’s A RespectableArmy (1982) is one of the best collections on theContinentals, and goes far to putting down old tropesabout the AWI. For the American militia, and theimportant role it played in the war, two books areof particular importance. The first, Mark Kwasny’sWashington’s Partisan War (1996) does a remarkablejob of explaining Washington’s changing attitudes anduse of irregulars, particularly in the New York-NewJersey-Connecticut theater of operations. Second,several essays in John Shy’s A People Numerous andArmed (1976) are must reads for understanding thevaried roles, motivations, and reactions of the militiaas well as Loyalists. While speaking of Shy’s work,every student who graduates with a MA in militaryhistory should read Shy’s Toward Lexington (1965),which rightly can be considered the work that startedthe “new military history.” For a work that focuses oncivil-military relations within the American camp, andpaints a fairly bleak picture of them, see Wayne Carp’sTo Starve the Army at Pleasure (1990).After reading Carp’s work, you hopefully will beinclined to see the war as a more complex eventthan you had previously. If Carp does not inspirethat, perhaps James Kirby Martin biography ofBenedict Arnold, Benedict Arnold, Revolutionary Hero36
(1997) will. If we can move beyond chest-thumpingcondemnations of Arnold’s treason, we might be ableto at least better understand Arnold’s motivations, andthrough them, the varied responses to the war. Indeed,a great deal needs to be done to get to the nuances ofwhy, how and when individuals fought the war. Twovery important biographies that go far toward doingthat, and in many ways debunk some of the AWI’smyths (such as the sharp-eyed fighting frontiersmenas well as a mass popular uprising against the Britishin the South) are Don Higginbotham’s Daniel Morgan(1979) and Robert Bass’s Swamp Fox (1989).Of course, it remains difficult to find too critical anassessment of George Washington. One book thatmay be helpful in shaping your views on Washington’sgeneralship is Edward Lengel’s General GeorgeWashington (2005). While many have written thatWashington could do no wrong, there is no shortage ofstudies that suggest his opponents were near blitheringidiots. However, students would be well served byreading George Billias’ George Washington’s Opponents(1969) and Ira Gruber’s The Howe Brothers and theAmerican Revolution (1972) for works that explains thetremendous challenges that confronted the British highcommand. The best book on war at the strategic level,the proper purview of those generals, remains PiersMackesy’s War for America (1964). If you were to readonly one book on the AWI from all those mentioned inthis lesson, read Makesy’s.A basic familiarity with the works mentioned hereshould lead you down other paths of inquiry, to morespecialized and focused studies. It should be clearby this point, as well, that AWI historiography hasnot progressed in as linear and definable pattern asthe historiography of the Revolution. There are fewschools within the field that compete with one another,and generally speaking, the works to emerge on themilitary history of the AWI are hardly contentious.Of course, one could argue the reason for the lackof contention and conflict in AWI historiography isthat historians have not asked the difficult questions.As aspiring Masters of the Historical Arts, it is up toyou to use those complex questions to establish yourgeneration’s school of thought on not just the AWI, butthe Revolution as a whole.Suggested Reading(Note: Only modern and easily accessible works arelisted)Alden, John. The South in the Revolution, 1765-1783.Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1957.Babits, Lawrence. A Devil of a Whipping: The Battle ofCowpens. Chapel Hill: University of North CarolinaPress, 1998.Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the AmericanRevolution. Cambridge: Belknap Press of HarvardUniversity Press, 1967.Billias, George A. George Washington’s Opponents:British Generals and Admirals in the AmericanRevolution. New York: Morrow, 1969.Carpe, Wayne E. To Starve the Army at Pleasure:Continental Army Administration and AmericanPolitical Culture, 1775-1783. Chapel Hill: University ofNorth Carolina Press, 1984.Conway, Stephen. The War of American Independence.New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995.Dederer, John. Making Bricks without Straw: NathanielGreene’s Southern Strategy and Mao-Tse Tung’s MobileWar. Manhattan, KS: Sunflower University Press, 1983.Fisher, David Hackett.Washington’s Crossing. New York:Oxford University Press, 2004.Grenier, John. The First Way of War: AmericanWar Making on the Frontier, 1607-1814. New York:Cambridge University Press, 2005.Gruber, Ira. The Howe Brothers and the AmericanRevolution. New York: Atheneum, 1972.Higginbotham, Don. The War for AmericanIndependence: Military Attitudes, Policies, and Practice.New York: Macmillan, 1971.37
Page 3 and 4: AcknowledgmentsThis document was wr
Page 5 and 6: Many of you may find the AHA “fiv
Page 7 and 8: Program ObjectivesIn addition to th
Page 9 and 10: Beyond the MA: Thinking about a PhD
Page 11 and 12: Your advisor will clear you to sit
Page 13 and 14: What is History?History is a field
Page 15 and 16: overzealous defenders of the instit
Page 17 and 18: is closest to the truth or history
Page 19 and 20: is as valid as any other. Fortunate
Page 21 and 22: MH 520: Global Military History to
Page 23 and 24: MH 551: Race and Gender in Military
Page 25 and 26: Master of Arts in History-American
Page 27 and 28: • A higher level understanding of
Page 29 and 30: time to read and absorb every singl
Page 31 and 32: Having such a binder is invaluable
Page 33 and 34: Part Two: ArgumentsChapter 1 is ent
Page 35 and 36: Style, Spelling, GrammarAll papers
Page 37: Anglophile American scholars of the
Page 41 and 42: smokescreen of traditional values a
Page 43 and 44: Julius Yourman’s article, “Prop
Page 45: With such a wide range of component

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?