An adequate supply of the right kinds of foods is critical to an army's success on the march and on the battlefield. Good food supplies and a dire lack of provisions have profound effects on the regulation, confidence, esprit de corps, and physical state of an army. The American War of Independence (1775-1783) provides a challenging case study of this principle. The relationship between food and troop morale has been previously discussed as just one of many factors that contributed to the success of the Continental Army, but has not been fully explored as a single issue in its own right. I argue that despite the failures of three provisioning system adopted by the Continental Congress - the Commissariat, the state system of specific supplies, and the contract system - the army did keep up its morale and achieve the victory that resulted in independence from Great Britain. The evidence reveals that despite the poor provisioning, the American army was fed in the field for eight years thanks largely to its ability to forage for its food. This foraging system, if it can be called a system, was adequate to sustain morale and perseverance.

The traditional narrative of political party development in the United States of America during the latter half of the 1790s ascribes the decline in popularity of the Federalist Party in the Election of 1800 to that party's passage of controversial legislation, specifically the Sedition Act of 1798, prior to the election. Between the passage of the Sedition Act and the Election of 1800, however, the midterm elections of 1798-1799 transpired and resulted in a significant increase in Federalist popularity in four states – North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia. This study seeks to ascertain why these four states increased their support for the Federalist Party in 1798-1799, despite the passage of the Sedition Act by the Federalist Party. By examining newspapers and election results, this study analyzes the reaction of these four states to the passage of the Sedition Act and finds that generally, these states did not react strongly against the Sedition Act in the immediate aftermath of its passage. Instead, all four states urged national unity and emphasized the need to support the national government because the United States faced the threat of war with France. This study employs a state-by-state formula to determine each state's individual reaction to the Sedition Act and the Quasi-War, finding that ultimately, the Sedition Act did not have as significant of an impact in these states as the popular narrative holds.

No description available.

Nathan Greene is the Revolutionary Warfare general most associated with unconventional warfare. The historiography of the southern campaign of the revolution uniformly agrees he was a guerrilla leader. Best evidence shows, however, that Nathanael Greene was completely conventional -- that his strategy, operations, tactics, and logistics all strongly resembled that of Washington in the northern theater and of the British commanders against whom he fought in the south. By establishing that Greene was within the mainstream of eighteenth-century military science this dissertation also challenges the prevailing historiography of the American Revolution in general, especially its military aspects. The historiography overwhelmingly argues the myth of the valiant few -- the notion that a minority of colonists persuaded an apathetic majority to follow them in overthrowing the royal government, eking out an improbable victory. Broad and thorough research indicates the Patriot faction in the American Revolution was a clear majority not only throughout the colonies but in each individual colony. Far from the miraculous victory current historiography postulates, American independence was based on the most prosaic of principles -- manpower advantage.

This thesis involves the creation of a historically-themed museum element. The element, titled “Improving Community,” is a virtual interactive game that allows players to explore certain realities of colonial American life. Within the game, players are presented with a number of civic-related issues that existed throughout the eighteenth century, and they are then given options to improve the situation. Interactivity and immersion are key features of the game, and they have been incorporated so that players may engage with the past and assume a more active role in the process of historical reconstruction. Research for the games draws mostly upon historical primary sources, including firsthand accounts, letters, diaries, periodicals, pamphlets, meeting minutes, and legal documents. In addition, the process of developing the games was informed by a number of secondary source works, and therefore this study inspects the ways in which “Improving Community” fits within the ongoing scholarly debates. Ultimately this project contributes to the field of public history by demonstrating the usefulness of games as a tool for historical exhibition. “Improving Community” is both entertaining and educational, and as a result, the game provides individuals with a unique outlet for exploring and experiencing the past.

This study addresses eighteenth-century English-speaking evangelicals' understandings of church history, through the lens of published attempts to represent preceding Christian centuries panoramically or comprehensively. Sources entail several short reflections on history emerging in the early years of the transatlantic Revival (1730s-1740s) and subsequent, more substantial efforts by evangelical leaders John Gillies, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, Joseph and Isaac Milner, and Thomas Haweis. Little scholarly analysis exists on these sources, aside from the renaissance of interest in recent decades in Edwards. This is surprising, considering the acknowledged prominence of history-writing in the eighteenth century and the influence attributed, then and now, to the works of authors such as Gibbon, Hume, and Robertson. The aim is, first, to elucidate each of the above evangelicals' interpretations of the Christian past, both in overview and according to what they said on a roster of particular historical events, people and movements, and then to consider shared and divergent aspects. These aspects range from points of detail to paradigmatic theological convictions. Secondarily, evangelical church histories are analyzed in relation to earlier Protestant as well as eighteenth-century 'enlightened' historiography, in part through attention to evangelical authors' explicit engagement with these currents. This contextualization assists in determining the unique qualities of evangelical interpretations. Is there, then, evidence of a characteristically 'evangelical' perspective on church history? An examination of this neglected area illumines patterns and particulars of evangelicals' historical thought, and these in turn communicate the self-perceptions and the defining features of evangelicalism itself. Findings support the primary contention that evangelical leaders made use of a dynamic pattern of revival and declension as a means of accounting for the full history of Christianity. Beyond displaying the central place of 'revival' for evangelicals, these church histories demonstrate evangelicalism‘s complex relationship—involving both receptivity and critique—with Protestant and Enlightenment currents of historical inquiry.