John Burgoyne, a British general during the American Revolution, is best known for his defeat by the Continental Army at Saratoga. In addition to serving as a general,Burgoyne was a playwright. While in Boston during the blockade following the Battle ofBunker Hill Burgoyne combined his interests, writing a satire of the war. The Blockade of Boston, Burgoyne's play, was first presented as an afterpiece to a production of The Busybody on January 8, 1776 (Silverman 292).Accounts of the performance differ in detail, but the central event is consistent: during the performance a soldier walked out on stage and announced that the rebels were attacking a British position. The audience of British military personnel, believing the statement to be a part of the performance, stayed in their seats to enjoy the show, only to then realize their mistake a moment later and rush off in great confusion. Most of the surviving records of this event are from the view of the delighted revolutionaries, who published accounts of it in their newspapers and pamphlets, to the lasting humiliation of the men involved with the production.I first encountered the story of Burgoyne's Blockade of Boston while working as a teaching assistant in an undergraduate theatre history class. The professor, Noreen Barnes, was lecturing on American theatre in the eighteenth century when she told the story of the interrupted first performance. I was intrigued by the story, and so when I wrote a paper on a disrupted performance for a historiography class, I chose to research the topic. I discovered that The Blockade of Boston, in addition to being a great story in its own right, could serve as a lens to examine the history of the period, opening questions of race, gender, and just what it means to be an American.

Though the American Revolutionary Army is often portrayed as a crucible of national feeling, this study of 169 diaries reveals that Revolutionary soldiers barely understood, or accepted as part of their community, large parts of the country for which they fought. The diaries include journals of ordinary soldiers, officers, and camp followers, and demonstrate the largely overlooked significance of soldiers’ physical environment in shaping their world-view. Typically episodic, often filled with random and apparently mundane detail, and occasionally dark with deep sadness and melancholy, diary writings reveal soldiers’ definitions of who belonged to the national community. Military historians of the Revolutionary War have long culled important details from various diaries, with the goal of constructing a synthesis of relevant narratives into a single history. In many ways, this project does the opposite. Instead of fitting soldier diarists into a single linear narrative of the war, it looks at how soldiers fought their war and understood its landscapes by creating a variety of sometimes complimentary, sometimes conflicting, personal and group narratives. The purposes and conventions that defined soldiers’ descriptions of land, architecture and people they encountered reveal their motivations for fighting, definitions of just violence, and hopes for victory. In turn each of these factors shaped their understanding of their war and the community for which they fought. This thesis follows American soldiers’ problem of understanding their new country through three chronological phases of the war. In the early years of the war, as American strategy focused on cities, soldiers struggled to protect themselves against the perceived immorality of city life. By blaming cities for their losses, soldiers developed a dark set of justifications for destroying civilian landscapes. In the mid war, the use of landscape description as a weapon intensified as both armies increasingly turned to scorched earth policies. As the campaigning turned south late in the war, northern soldiers guarded themselves against a landscape they perceived as inherently unhealthy. In their depiction of these places, soldiers used their diaries as tools to protect their bodies and souls, and contemplate American landscapes they often found foreign. / History

The topic of this thesis is on political instability and revolutionary war in the countries that were involved with the Arab Spring. As created by James. C Davies (1962), the J-curve hypothesis serves as the foundational theoretical framework, where revolutions are ignited after prolonged improvements in political and economic living conditions which become interrupted by a sharp reversal. Panel data with variables that measure quantitative factors are analysed by using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression and logistic regression, to statistically test which factors have created political instability and ignited revolutionary war in the Arab Spring. The results of the statistical analysis indicate that political factors, rather than economic factors, such as political terror against the population and government corruption are the most relevant in explaining political instability and revolutionary war in the Arab Spring and the developments that followed.

George Washington's role in the American Revolution has not been lost in the mists of time, but most modern Americans have lost touch with his actual character and style because of the immense cultural changes that have transpired since the eighteenth century. However, by examining the duties of Washington throughout the Revolutionary War from four different perspectives a more holistic interpretation of Washington during America's fight for independence may be gained. This study examines the relationships Washington had with Congress as well as with his fellow officers and troops. Particular attention is paid to the manner in which Washington led the army, in addition to how he was perceived by his contemporaries at large. The goal of this thesis is to achieve a holistic interpretation of Washington's tenure as Commander-in-Chief, which will enable a better understanding of why Washington was and continues to be perceived as a symbol for American independence.

For Anglicans and Presbyterians, the Revolutionary War had proven the "faithless" character of the American nation. The American Methodist focus on individualism, exciting and loud worship, lack of educated clergy, enthusiasm, and perceived adherence to the Republican ideas dominant in the culture of the United States were viewed as antithetical to the more British focus on social responsibility, sober teaching, and adherence to the British king and constitution. With the 1812 declaration of war, the churches with stronger transatlantic connections were presented with powerful proof that their suspicions were based in reality and that the need to expel the faithless national foe of America from British soil coincided with the clerical need to expel the faithless doctrines of the Methodists as well. Whether critiquing the United States or the frontier religion that was deemed too similar in its teachings and practice, the Anglicans, Presbyterians and- to a lesser extent-Wesleyan Methodists were constructing a ignore British version of British North American culture in order to combat what they perceived to be the growing threat of faithless, American values. These arguments found their impetus in the mixed composition of colonial inhabitants, the dubious loyalties of the American-born farmers in Upper Canada, and the events of the War of 1812. In order to unite such disparate peoples, the clergy defined and celebrated England's Christian character to demonstrate to that fragmented and diverse collection of inhabitants the benefits of being loyal subjects of God's empire rather than foolish citizens of a faithless nation. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

No description available.

A significant number of Pennsylvanians were not, in any meaningful sense, either revolutionaries or loyalists during the American War for Independence. Rather, they were disaffected from both sides in the imperial dispute, preferring, when possible, to avoid engagement with the Revolution altogether. The British Occupation of Philadelphia in 1777 and 1778 laid bare the extent of this popular disengagement and disinterest, as well as the dire lengths to which the Patriots would go to maintain the appearance of popular unity. Driven by a republican ideology that relied on popular consent in order to legitimate their new governments, American Patriots grew increasingly hostile, intolerant, and coercive toward those who refused to express their support for independence. By eliminating the revolutionaries' monopoly on military force in the region, the occupation triggered a crisis for the Patriots as they saw popular support evaporate. The result was a vicious cycle of increasing alienation as the revolutionaries embraced ever more brutal measures in attempts to secure the political acquiescence and material assistance of an increasingly disaffected population. The British withdrawal in 1778, by abandoning the region's few true loyalists and leaving many convinced that American Independence was now inevitable, shattered what little loyalism remained in the region and left the revolutionaries secure in their control of the state. In time, this allowed them to take a more lenient view of disaffection and move toward modern interpretations of silence as acquiescence and consent for the established government. / History

During the Revolutionary War, many key Patriot leaders believed that militia were untrustworthy and useless in battle. After the American victory, many of the same men proclaimed their support for the militia as the foundation of the new nation's defense. The debate on the efficacy of Patriot militia continues into modern scholarship; some historians credit the militia with an important strategic role in the war, while others consider them a mere footnote in a conflict that was truly won by the Continental Army. This series of case studies examines four American expeditionary militia units to assess their level of military competence and professionalism. The results show that militia units were far from amateur, and many conducted their operations in a professional military manner. This supports a conclusion that militia both contributed to the American victory and remained a practical means of defense for the young nation.

"This book presents profiles of sixteen individuals born and raised in countries other than America who voluntarily joined the revolutionary cause. Each profile discusses personal experiences that influenced the volunteer leader's decision to fight for the fledgling country, the sacrifices endured for the benefit of the Revolutionary Cause, and the unique talents each contributed to the war effort." --OCLC WorldCat Contents: Global citizen "adopts" America: zealous Philip Mazzei -- Farmer of thoughts: Thomas Paine -- Haym Salomon: financial hero -- Frontier savior: patriot Francis Salvador -- "I serve the country for nothing": the indestructible John Barry, father of the American navy -- Dunkirk pirate: the exploits of Gustavus Conyngham -- Going in harm's way: the adventures of John Paul Jones -- The versatile, yet forgotten, George Farragut -- Charting his own course: the life of Pierce Butler -- Thaddeus Kościuszko: prince of tolerance -- The daring and dastardly Charles Armand -- Hungarian Hussar Michael Kovats -- Sacrifical warrior Baron Johann de Kalb -- Thunderbolt of war: Count Casimir Pulaski -- Washington's one-man army: Peter Francisco -- The revolutionary pedagogy of drillmaster Baron Friedrich Wiilhelm von Steuben. / https://dc.etsu.edu/etsu_books/1043/thumbnail.jpg

No description available.