Political thought of the american revolution Video
Political Philosophy and the American Founding political thought of the american revolutionThe American War of Independence broke out on this day April 19 inwhen 70 Massachusetts militiamen confronted British troops on the Lexington green.
"Are you looking for this answer? We can Help click Order Now"
The contrast between the two types https://digitales.com.au/blog/wp-content/custom/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-technology-in/freaks-and-geeks-actress.php American troops — the citizen-soldiers of the militias and the professional and uniformed soldiers of the Continental Army — was a meaningful one to Americans during the war years, and has remained important ever since. Civilians likewise were more supportive of militia with provisions and hospitality because militiamen were locals, whereas Continentals were strangers from distant states.
Moreover, militia provided various services for local communities — from regional and town defense to suppressing Loyalist opposition — which Continentals did not. These factors explain why civilians were much more likely to perform their military service in the militia —which they did in aemrican numbers — than in the Continental Army. As a result, the Continental Army struggled to maintain its numbers and became increasingly populated by socially marginal Americans — men at the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder and at the outskirts of society — whereas militias featured a more of jazz cross-section of the male citizenry.
After the war, Americans overwhelmingly credited the militia for the victory in the war. The militia was also the key to Patriot civic control in countless American towns, which enabled Patriots to sustain the Continental Army with provisions and recruits, while denying these invaluable resources to the British Army. In the twentieth century, however, Americans transferred the laurels of victory from the militia to the Continental Army. This is reflected in both academic and popular histories, as well as in museum exhibits, documentaries, literature, and film.
Rather, this historical question was intimately related to the way Americans organized their political lives in any given era since the Revolution. The militia and the army are emblems of adversarial administrative systems — the political thought of the american revolution governments and the national government — that have competed with one another over jurisdiction and authority since the birth of the republic. In the centuries that followed the Revolution, Americans engaged in fierce contests over the proper roles, jurisdictions, and powers of the Federal and state governments. Thus, the idea of an effective militia that was the backbone of the war effort served Americans in the early-republic as a testament to the efficacy of democratic civic institutions.
Read the Revolution
It taught that the states had led the war effort and won the war, and should therefore take the lead in administering public life in the young republic. By contrast, the twentieth-century narrative of a feckless militia and strong army was a testament to the need for professional expertise to run important executive bodies. Continue reading taught that the national government had won the war, and that it should therefore direct public policy. It makes sense, therefore, that during this time, Americans have shifted their historical understanding of the Revolutionary War, determining that the Continental Army had won the war, rather than the militias.]
What necessary words... super, an excellent idea