“An Exceedingly Dirty and Nasty People”: Exploring the Patriot Forces of 1775
Department or Program American Cultural Studies Abstract In popular revolutionary iconography, New England colonists are praised for their dramatic rush to arms during the first few months of the American Revolution. While this enthusiasm led thousands of colonists to take up arms, it faded by 1776 resulting in a dramatically diminished force. What happened? Why did the forces of 1776 differ so much from those of 1775? My research focuses on how the changing military organization of New England forces in 1775, from a collection of local militias to an army, impacted colonists’ enlistment and enthusiasm. To understand the development of New England forces, this thesis explores the connections between the local militia system, the creation of the Continental Army, the appointment of George Washington, and the changes in revolutionary rhetoric during 1775. Level of Access Open Access Date of Graduation Spring 5-2012 Degree Name Bachelor of Arts Recommended Citation Maxwell, Katharine A., "“An Exceedingly Dirty and Nasty People”: Exploring the Patriot Forces of 1775" (2012). Honors Theses. 53. https://scarab.bates.edu/honorstheses/53
The Papers of George Washington
Hi. I'm Ted Crackel and I'm the new Editor in Chief of the Papers of George Washington. I'm delighted to be here and look forward to meeting all of you in the months and years ahead. Since many of you do not know me let me say something about my background. I have a B.A. in history from the University of Illinois and an M.A. and Ph.D. from Rutgers University. My books have included Mr. Jefferson's Army: Political and Social Reform of the Military Establishment, 1801– 1809 and West Point: A Bicentennial History. Before coming here I was the director and editor of a wholly digital project— Papers of the War Department 1784– 1800—at East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania. One thing making that project special was that the usual collection of documents that a project works with was, in that case, destroyed in a fire in 1800. The job there was to reconstitute those re-cords—locating surviving copies of documents that likely would have been in the War Office at the time of the fire. To date that project has located nearly 50,000 such documents. I arrived at the University of Virginia the last day of August 2004. I am pleased to be here and to head such a truly professional staff. Our editors are the world's leading experts on the life and times of George Washington. My goal is to see that both the high standards set in place so many years ago and the steady pace of production are maintained. They are, and will continue to be, the hallmark of the project. Volume 12 of the Presidential Series (Christine Patrick, lead editor, and John Pinheiro, junior editor) was issued in late January 2005. Volume 15 of the Revolutionary War Series (Ed Lengel, editor) is at the Press, and Volume 16 (David Hoth, editor) will be sent to the Press in May. When Hoth's volume goes to the Press he will move to the Presidential Series. That will give us two editors in each se-ries—Patrick and Hoth in the Presidency, and Phil Chase and Lengel in the Revolutionary War. As you might expect, there will be a few small changes in forthcoming volumes. The first will be the addition of a brief introduction in the front matter of each volume that will discuss the events and persons that most occupied Washington's at-President George W. Bush talks with editors in the …
PLEASURE, POWER, AND THE PURSUIT OF COMMUNISM: SOVIET YOUTH AND STATE-SPONSORED POPULAR CULTURE DURING THE EARLY COLD WAR, 1945-1968
art, with certain students accused of “showing political immaturity, failing to understand the Party’s positions on art.” This episode constituted part of a broader crackdown on abstract art by the Khrushchev administration from late 1962, precipitated the the Soviet leader’s derision of such art forms in December 1962 at the Manege exhibit. Such instances demonstrate the limitations of the top-level promotion of youth grassroots initiative, as the Khrushchev leadership reigned in youth autonomy when it threatened to go beyond the boundaries of the permissible. The dates cited above have particular resonance, since both 1957-58 and 1962-63 represent two periods when those at the top of the Party hierarchy moved away from pursuing a more pluralistic, tolerant policy course, due to anxiety inspired by both sharpening Cold War hostilities and domestic developments. In these periods, official rhetoric censured what it labeled as 639 TsAOPIM, f. 635, op. 13, d. 546, ll. 56-57. This is likely related to criticism of the Party associated with the fallout from the Secret Speech and the Hungary invasion. For more, see Polly Jones, “From the Secret Speech to the Burial of Stalin: Real and Ideal Responses to De-Stalinization,” in Jones ed., The Dilemmas, 41-63. 640 TsAOPIM, f. 6083, op. 1, d. 52, ll. 166-67. 641 Susan E. Reid, “In the Name of the People: The Manege Affair Revisited,” Kritika 6.4 (Fall 2005): 673716. 642 On these anxieties, see Dobson, Khrushchev’s Cold Summer, 156-88.