The French and Indian war took place between 1754 and 1763. Here between these nine years would serve as the blue print to America’s history and future. “What began as a struggle over territorial rights between British colonist and French settlers became part of an international war between the great powers” (Schwartz, 1). To truly understand the French and Indian war, many must take a look into the past events that caused the dispute between the British and the French. During the year 1498, the British claims to the continent were based on the London Company and the sailing of the waters under the rule of King James I. This is where the British company in the latter half of the seventeenth century, under the crown established a reign or province, extending from seas to sea.
George Browm Tindall, David Emory Shi. American History: 5th Brief edition, W. W. Norton & Company; November 1999
Brown, Jerold E. Historical Dictionary Of The U.S. Army. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2001. eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 29 Jan. 2014.
King Philip’s War (1675-76) is an event that has been largely ignored by the American public and popular historians. However, the almost two-year conflict between the colonists and the Native Americans in New England stands as perhaps the most devastating war in this country’s history. One in ten soldiers on both sides were wounded or killed. At its height, hostilities threatened to push the recently arrived English colonists back to the coast. And, it took years for towns and urban centers to recover from the carnage and property damage.
The war of 1812 played many key factors in the shaping of our nation. This had been the second time that the young nation had taken on the most powerful country in the world. Outnumbered in ships, munitions, men, supplies and funding, our militia joined with the army and stood toe-to-toe with the British, and twice prevailed. The war was considered to be the ‘Second War of American Independence’, and it all certainly was. Surrounding nations were aghast at the audacity of America, and even more so with their triumph. Because of the war from 1812-1815, the United States of America had earned a position – however small – of power, influence, and respect in the realm of the world. The war strengthened our country, which ultimately led to our great nation today.
Throughout the comparatively recent history of the United States, there have been many obstacles that the relatively young nation has had to overcome. Even before the nation had obtained its independence from Britain, there were conflicts with the Natives of the new land. Then wars were fought for other countries benefit, on their own soil. Then, of course, there was the Revolutionary War, fought in the late 1770’s, in which British colonists rose up against their British fathers in order to gain economic, religious and political freedom. After the acquirement of their independence as a nation, there were still many conflicts that the fledgling country had to worry about. The continent of North America was still controlled by other European superpowers, not to mention the multitudes of Native Indians that populated the lands west of the Appalachians. In order to combat other world powers as well as increase their own wealth, trade, and influence, the Americans adopted an attitude of ‘Manifest Destiny’, in which westward expansion was priority and their right. This however, led to more troubles and conflicts with the Natives of the land. The Indians west of the Appalachian m...
...n his volunteer-troops, rather than an “exceptionally well drilled and experienced army.” The Civil War required a “quickly improvised…realistic standard for mid-nineteenth century America.” Which, as Griffith points out, they either did “ineffectively or reverted to outdated tactics disastrously.” The developments of technology certainly had a very large role in the way the war was fought but what truly caused the shift from Napoleonic to modern warfare was the fact that America was not Europe and the battle was for a cause much more powerful than land acquisition and discourse with another nation, but rather ideological dissonance within. Both authors analyzed how the United States’ differed from the countries across the Atlantic in order to provide some explanation regarding the nature of the Civil War and why it took so many lives before it came to an end.
As proclaimed in the “Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms,” we agreed that the British government had left the people with only two options, “unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers or resistance by force.” Thus, in the early months of the dreadfully long year of 1775, we began our resistance. As the war progressed, the Americans, the underdogs, shockingly began winning battles against the greatly superior mother country of England. Actually, as seen in the battle of Bunker Hill, not only were they winning, they were annihilating hundreds of their resilient opponents. Countless questions arose before and during the War of Independence. Problems like: social equality, slavery, women’s rights, and the struggle of land claims against Native Americans were suddenly being presented in new and influencing ways to our pristine leaders. Some historians believe that while the Revolutionary War was crucial for our independence, these causes were not affected; thus, the war was not truly a revolution. Still, being specified in the Background Essay, several see the war as more radical, claiming it produced major changes above and beyond our independence.
...Ernest R. and Gregory F. Treverton. ‘Defence Relationships: American Perspectives’. The Special Relationship. Ed. William Rogers Louis and Hedley Bull. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986. 161-184.
The Army has been in existence since 1775 when Congress authorized the creation of 10 rifle companies (Army Birthdays 2011). The standing federal Army was created in 1803 followed by a series of reforms to the Army professional education system (Dempsy 2014). I will argue that the Army is a Profession of Arms by showing a system of continued learning, training, and growth; the code of ethics held by the Army; and the level of autonomy afforded Army leaders and their Soldiers.
2. Clarefield, Gerard. Security with Solvency: Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Shaping of the American Military Establishment. Westport, CT, Praeger, 1999.
Millett, Allan Reed., Peter Maslowski, and William B. Feis. For the Common Defense: A Military History of the United States from 1607 to 2012. New York: Free, 2012. Print.
Weigley, Russel F. History of the United States Army. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1st Edition, 1984.
Leahy, Stephen M. "The Historical Battle over Dispatching American Troops." USA Today (Farmingdale). July 1999: 10-12. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 07 May. 2014.
It is interesting and even surprising that the two major strategies regarding war were developed by European contemporaries of the late eighteenth and nineteenth century. Antoine Henri de Jomini (1779-1869) approached his philosophy of war in a structured, scientific manner. Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) took a more fluid, open-ended approach to his philosophy of war. The fact that they lived during the same time period in Europe is also fascinating in that they likely knew of each others’ writings as well as potentially influenced and were influenced by the philosophy of the other. Jomini’s scientific approach is more applicable to the tactical and operational levels of war while Clausewitz approaches war as more of an art or interaction between people that is more appropriate to the strategic and political levels of war. Although their two war strategies are presented as opposing strategies, by comparing concepts from each of the theorists to the other theorist’s work shows that they are actually more complementary than competing in that they are addressing different levels of war. The concepts to be evaluated are Clausewitz’s “Trinity of War”, “war as a continuation of politics”, and the “unpredictability of war” as well as Jomini’s definition of strategy and his “Fundamental Principle of War”.