American History

The colonial America comprised of thirteen colonies from Europe. The colonies were as varied as their cultural and religious background. There were tension and culture clash as each colony tried to chart its own way and acquire more land in the expansive America. For too long the colonial settlers were against each other. Competition between religious groups was rifle and intolerance of other peoples culture was the order of the day. However, there came a time when colonies had to unite for their own good. There were two historical experiences that led to the unity of the American thirteen colonies. One of these was the Great Awakening movement that happened during 1720s through to the 1740s. Most immigrants that settled in the colonial America came seeking a religious freedom. And since the British never imposed the Church of England as the official church on the 13 colonies, religious practices were diverse as the people themselves. The Great Awakening started by Jonathan Edwards and later led by George Whitefield together with other itinerant pastors moved around the continent and across the colonies preaching for a new birth and repentance regardless of ones cultural or religious background (Ciment, 2005). The preachers and their followers were credited with promoting religious tolerance among the diverse religious groups in the different colonies. The revival movement brought a new understanding of the Christian faith that was very much missing which was to be shared by people from the north and south as well as across all races.

French and Indian which occurred between 1754 and 1763 cemented the gains made by the great awakening. While it is notated that most the past colonial wars experienced in North America began in Europe before spreading to the colonies, the French and Indian war was a different one it was started in North America before it spilled over to Europe. Suspicion and cutthroat competition between the colonies was responsible for the war. For example, the French and the British had a long struggle to take control of the Ohio valley and the Great lakes region something said to have been the primary cause of the war (Ciment, 2005). The French and Indian war brought a sense for unity of purpose among the thirteen American colonists under the British Empire to win the war against the French who were viewed as a threat by all other colonists. Unity among Americans was further boosted by this war as people found an opportunity to leave their colonies and move across the larger continent to fight alongside other people from different cultural background but shared the common American interest.

During the war, Americans got the opportunity to be trained by the British officers in readily for the battle, something that did not only bring the colonies together but would later help in the American Revolution. According to Ciment (2005) the war also brought together the colonial legislatures as well as officials into strong cooperation probably for the first time in efforts to pursue the continents military strength. Once the war was over and the French defeated, the colonists together with the British felt a joint a triumphant victory over their common enemy. This strengthened the colonies loyalty to America as their mother land more than before. The end of the war also marked the end of the need for colonial protection of the colonists because the foreign threat had been eliminated.

It was late Saturday evening, Lisa Donath, a teen drug counselor was on her way home from work. She was not feeling well that time and thought it could be due to the blood she donated the other day. While at the station, Lisa fainted and fell right on the trail racks near a couple. Without any delay, the man named Ismael Feneque, a pattern maker, jumped in to rescue her, 20 seconds before the next train arrived. Within such a short time, Ismael was able to rescue Lisa and climb up to save himself. When asked, Ismael said he did not bear any second thoughts about saving Lisa, even if it could have caused his own life. In our everyday life, we encounter many struggles and negative experiences. We hear about rape, murder, robbery, and many different kinds of crime that make us feel pessimistic about people and the world. However, stories of heroism like what Ismael did inspire us to believe that there is still hope in the future, if we only teach our children the right values and virtues they should bear. In view of this, the family, school, and community should contribute to emphasizing good values and virtues among children. In this paper, we discuss the values and virtues that every American youth should imbibe despite coming from different cultural backgrounds.

The structure of American classes nowadays is usually made up of children from different multicultural origins. Hence, multiculturalism presents the challenge to every teacher who intends to teach about American culture and values. Despite coming from different backgrounds, children should possess values and virtues typical of every American youth in order to ensure individual adoptability and sound social structure.

The challenge involves a number of considerations. Among which is the belief in moral relativism that tend to lead the youth to lose moral conviction. Sommers (in Surname of Editor, year) identifies todays youths inability to judge situations with strong moral conviction. Most of them are morally misled, and cannot decide whether something is good or bad. When asked the same question, one interviewee explained that it depends on the person to decide whether what she does is good or bad. This inability to identify good from evil is alarming for there is a better probability that they will do what is wrong more than what is right. For Sommers, this kind of thinking is no better than the philosophy of a sociopath (390). A morally deranged person does things on impulse and not by purpose. In Aristotles (in Surname of Editor, year) Nichomachean Ethics, he emphasizes that our desires should be directed towards a good goal or else it will be empty and in vain (366). He believes that a person who knows right from wrong can likewise identify between physical and higher pleasures. Like Sommers, he supports the idea that there are standards of goodness. People are endowed with the capability to determine what is right and what is wrong based on the outcome of a certain act. Thus, a good deed results in a good outcome, one that is beneficial to those who are concerned.

To develop the ability to distinguish right from wrong, Sommers suggests a great relearning where students will be taught of general rules that would help reform their thoughts towards doing what is good. A great relearning is necessary in order to unlearn and correct wrong notions and behaviors developed in the past. To do this, students should hear a lot of stories and examples of good deeds such as those of Ismael Feneques heroism. Everyday, one of them will be assigned to report an act of heroism they encountered from the news or read from the Internet. This will help them realize that courage or heroism is one of the values that Americans should have. The heroism of American people, especially those who fought in the wars, should be strongly emphasized to similarly motivate students to learn and value freedom.

Krauthammer (in Surname of Editor, year) renders a commentary on recurrent crimes, among which is rape. According to him, the incidence of rape has multiplied over the years from the 1960s. In response to this, teachers should emphasize the importance of respect for life and rights. Mainly, children should learn how to give respect to others, especially to human beings. By exercising respect, people can live harmoniously, Respect for the law, property, and freedom of speech are just some values they need to relearn. In teaching respect, the teacher should allow students to share about their own culture. At the start of every lesson, one student will share practices, traditions, food, etc. which are exclusive to ones culture. This way, students will be exposed to cultural differences, thus promoting respect and acceptance of other peoples individuality.

Another value that students need to develop is honesty. For Aristotle, the wise speak only the truth. In Sommers (in Surname of Editor, year), the author confronts the crucial reality that many of our youth today do not bear the truth. Sad to know, some are doubtful of important historical facts such as the Holocaust and the WWII, where many lives were fought and lost in vain. This sad reality about the youth challenges us again to submit students to a kind of relearning. Teaching history, memorizing facts, and reading about important events in history are certainly not enough to show our youth the truth about the past. What they need is evidence. Therefore, to teach truth students should be made to watch videos and documentaries. These resources should include documentaries on the past including our ancestors, and the present situation of our people and even those who are experiencing hunger or oppression such as those in Somalia or in Tibet. These documentaries would help them realize the truth. After viewing, students should be asked to write reflections based on what they have seen, and these reactions should be processed through discussion in class.

In addition, lessons for teaching honesty and truth should include practical applications. Sommers (Ibid.) emphasize that teaching honesty includes teaching students the importance of decency. In the academic setting, honesty may be exercised by not plagiarizing. Plagiarizing somebodys work demonstrates the loss of honesty and respect for other peoples right. It also results in the loss of human dignity. The students should understand that these values are interconnected, thus neglecting one results in neglect of another.

Related to honesty and respect is the value of patience. The modern trends that we live with nowadays teach us to do things in an instant. Instant coffee, instant meals, and instant income are just some things we enjoy because we escape the need to wait. This results in our inability to wait for the right time before something comes to fruition, or before something is perfectly ripened. It also results in the loss of patience. Many youngsters nowadays have forgotten the value of patience. Thus, they resort to copying or plagiarizing other peoples work, they resort to liposuction instead of exercising, or they try to secure jobs that can make them earn instant cash. In response to the need to redevelop patience, teachers should design activities that require students to do a comprehensive and hands-on project such as conducting research, interviews, or preparing videos and other activities that they would enjoy doing and at the same time allow them to spend time working together as groups. Cooperative learning would teach them the value of patience and hard work.

Heroism, ability to determine right from wrong, respect, honesty and patience are only some American values and virtues that we need to develop among students in order to reform society. Although these values are universal, we accept the fact that there are critics and skeptics who will oppose to teaching them in the classroom. For instance, some may think that heroism cannot apply to most students. However, it should be stressed that values such as heroism can be demonstrated in simple ways. For instance, a simple help to carry a classmates books is an act of heroism. Checking ones own paper can be an exercise of honesty and judging right from wrong. Also, a simple drawing exercise using natural pigments can promote patience among young students. Every teacher should consider that the little things they do and the values they develop in the classroom can do wonders eventually when students set foot in the big world.

World War I is one of the most pivotal events of the world. For America, the First World War also serves to be an important turning point of its history and its role to international affairs. David Kennedys exceptional book entitled Over Here the First World War and the American Society is a well-written account that evaluates and analyzes the real significance of the Great War to the transformations of the American society. Kennedys book is a well-researched document that focuses more on the domestic or home front events that also took place when America decided to join the war. It is a very informative, excellent book that helps people to understand the consequences of the war for the country and how it led to the birth of modern America. Over Here documents the strengths, weaknesses, trials, and successes of the government and the American nation during this crucial time in world history.

The First World War has really brought immense tension to the American society not only because it is a threat to the peace of the nation, but also because it signified the first intense involvement of America to international affairs. Kennedy addressed in his book the persistent confusion about Americas stake in the fighting, and about the precise causes and purposes of American Entry (46). Over Here presents the most comprehensive discussion of the impact of World War I to America, how the people struggled because of it, how the society changed due to it, and what emerged from the American society after it. The book also noted how the pressure of the Great War also hinted the possible character of the modern American nation in terms of handling issues related to politics, economics, and international relations.

The arrival of the war in America was not immediate. Although the war started in 1914, President Woodrow Wilson was apprehensive that if America joined the war, every reform they won will be lost. It was not until the spring of 1917 that President Wilson changed his mind and began planning what role should America play in the war. Prior to the announcement of the President that America will join the war in Europe, there had been threats and attacks from the German forces already. But Kennedy noted that America declined for as long as they can until it reached the point that the terrorization and the insults from Germany had at last become too many and too grievous to endure for America (10). After consulting with all of his advisers that were unanimously in favor of war with Germany, the President announced to the Congress that America will be taking part of the First World War. Kennedy details in his book how the announcement of the President would not simply concern the question of peace or war, but the ways in which America should wage the war (13). With a careful, organized discussion of all the actions and decisions committed by the American government during their entry to the Great War, Kennedy produced a wide-ranging book that really delivers the picture of the war home front in times of great peril.

In America, the First World War was packaged as a war for democracy, a war to end war, a war to protect liberalism, a war against militarism, a war to redeem barbarous Europe, a crusade (Kennedy 51). But domestic America also faced its own turmoil while the war in Europe was taking place.

Kennedy discussed the economic concerns brought by the war for the Americans and how the war had begun slowly changing all sectors of the society, even politics and labor. Different ideologies emerged, most prominently would be the debates between the radicals and the conservatives. As a whole, Over Here managed to remain objective in discussing the important experiences happening in American land during this historical period. Not all Americans were in favor of the nations involvement to the First World War. Many conservatives and isolationists spent the day pleading with Senators and Representatives not to approve the expected request for a declaration of war (Kennedy 15). In fact, the division between those who are in favor of it and those who want the nation to isolate itself from it became more intense as the days passed. Kennedy noted how the war resulted to unbridgeable chasms between those who feared and those who welcomed the consequences of American belligerency and caused more threat to the peace of the American nation (Kennedy 29).

Kennedy also discussed in the book how President Wilsons administration needed to cultivate or even manufacture public opinion that would agree to their plans and goals. The entry to war definitely resulted to an intense ambiance and amplified the different social concerns of America so the president had to utilize all measures he had to keep the nation intact and productive. The Great War was peculiarly an affair to the mind and the President knew this as well (Kennedy 46). Wilson was not like other politicians because he was a newcomer to the field and he used popular opinion to help him achieve his political purposes. The Presidents strategy was to appeal directly to the people and produce a unified convictions and perspective of the issue. Propaganda was definitely beneficial for President Wilson to convince everyone to support the war and to take part on it even on domestic level.

Over Here also discussed how President Wilson intended to keep government borrowing to a minimum, while increasing taxes and very probably revising the tax structure itself in order to finance the war (Kennedy 13). The author also noted that there had been universal military training of drafted men who would become soldiers in the war. But most importantly, Kennedys book highlighted how the President used Americanism or the repression of supposed disloyalty to make his plans of war more effective and tightly productive. The war paved way to the ideal of 100 Americanism that intends to keep the loyalty to the American flag more intact in this crucial time. The war popularized the idea of America being the melting pot of different races and paved way for schools for immigrants where people from different races would be welcomed and educated the American way. But Kennedy also noted how this ideal also resulted to a bad case of vigilantism where people related to Germany, even those who denounce it, faced sufferings in the hands of the pro-Americanism.

But the book not only noted the troubles of the war to domestic America. Kennedy also gave significant emphasis on all the positive changes that the nation needed but only became possible because of the war. The author noted all progressive reforms and decisions in social, economic, and political policies. Several provisions on the labor laws changed, one of them was that work became restrained to just eight hour per day end of child labor, right to form unions, and better wages for the people. The war also led to the eventual migration of the Blacks from the South and womens movement. Kennedy also highlighted how the Great War catapulted the role of America to become a part of the affairs of the world. Although, it did not successfully push through at once after the war because America isolate itself again after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles where the American Congress refused to ratify peace treaty due to its inclusion of the league of nations that they deemed may threaten the independence of their country. Later on, of course, America also learned from these early decisions.

And though the First World War did not actually produce the rich, powerful nation that America is now nor did it ensure that peace will be surely continuous and prevailing around the world, the Great War was able to pave way for the possibility of a prosperous, modern America. As a whole, the book significantly acknowledged how President Wilson contributed to the development of several facets of the American society and what became of the nation in the post-war world.  Kennedys book was successful in achieving its goal of describing how the changes of the First World War affected the future of the nation, how America became more involved with other countries, and what was the image of the early 20th century of the American society.

Lies My Teacher Told Me Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong explores the other side of  some American history  that has been excluded in  high school history textbooks.  American textbook writers, according to James W. Lowen, author of  Lies My Teachers Told Me,  glorified the American historical truth while bombarding students with tedious and one- sided information about America. As a result, students find American history boring. (p.2-3). Also it isolates the students of color s own ethnic history by leaving out important facts printed in some American history textbooks that Lowen has researched.

Lowen, professor of sociology at the University of Vermont, investigates and explains about how textbook writers altered historical facts to sell students a product  of  progressive country without flaws. (p. 249)  He believes these  lies   in textbook may be the root cause of  high school students disinterest in history. This is after he surveyed high school students from Mississippi, Vermont and the metro area of Washington D.C. about their least favorite subject (p.1-7)  Besides observing students, most of his proof comes from the twelve textbooks he analyses. In addition, Lowen interviews American history teachers who has to teach the altered textbook.

The reviewer did not approached the author s knowledge in a skeptical manner because of the author s career and  co-writer of  the history textbook Mississippi Conflict and Change. He  reserves the right to dismantle the issue from a subjective view.  He asks the reader  (1995)  Why are history textbooks so bad  Nationalism is one of the ld allowed the reader to make their own judgment as indicated by
Lowen  about American history textbooks.  

For every country, there is always a point in history when everything seems to change.  For the United States of America, it is the Louisiana Purchase which is considered to be the most significant event to impact the nations history.  Events such as this represent a huge portion of any countrys development and so ripples in effect from social, to political, to cultural.  In the case of the Louisiana Purchase, while many contemporary events are focused mainly on its commemoration as a historical event, there are other, more interesting aspects of this particular event that have to be considered such as its cultural effect.  The Louisiana Purchase served to enrich the culture of the United States in more ways than one as evidenced in the social constructs that exist in states included in the said purchase as well as many arts, civic, and cultural activities that are implemented in commemoration of this very significant event in United States history.

The Louisiana Purchase is when President Thomas Jefferson purchased the vast territory of Louisiana from France in 1803, doubling the size of the United States. (Arkansas State Secretary)  In 1815, the new land acquired was surveyed which then resulted in efforts to explore and settle in the American West.  (Arkansas State Secretary)  Many historians consider this huge historical event to be instrumental in the emergence of the United States as a world power mainly because of the physical effects of the purchase  making the United States a country that can dwarf many other countries in the matter of geographical domain.  The Purchase elevated a fledgling nation into a world power made Missouri and 12 other future states a part of this nation, and transformed St. Louis, a small trading post, into the Gateway to the West. (Louisiana Purchase Bicentennial)  So, based on the phenomenal impact of this particular period in the history of the United States it is safe to surmise that the event had its tangible effects on the culture of the nation.  These effects are not imaginary in fact, there is evidence that the Louisiana Purchase had visibly influenced how culture developed in the new world.

The Louisiana Purchase had a significant effect in the blending of cultures among the various occupants of the United States, more specifically of the states covered by the Louisiana Purchase.  The Louisiana Purchase offered the potential for the creation of a rich, multicultural civilization blending Native American, French, Spanish, Anglo-American, and other influences. (Louisiana Purchase Bicentennial)  Here it is clear that the multicultural composition of the United States is influenced significantly by the various cultures that were active in the states that the Louisiana Purchase acquired as part of the United States of America.  In the West coast of the United States there is a dominance of French culture which is due largely to the French hold of these territories prior to the Louisiana Purchase.  So, when the territories were purchased by the United States, a huge percentage of its population retained their French ancestry.  French culture, however, is not the only culture that is evident in these states and all other states in the country because Native American culture and the Anglo-American culture also pervaded traditions and practices.  This resulted to the emergence of an entirely different and distinct culture that is now known as American Culture.  In any event, this mingling of cultures resulted in many tangible expressions of the Louisiana Purchase itself.

The field of the arts also has its own share of influence from this historical event.  The Pontalba Affair, a new opera composed and written by Thea Musgravefeaturesthe story of the Purchasein the first act of the opera, especially scene fourto serve almost exclusively as the backdrop for the melodrama. (Transatlantica)  This particular incident is merely an example of how the Purchase has found its way into American arts.  Other than just in theater and music, the Purchase is also portrayed in the visual arts.   An oil-painting located in the Western Expansion of the Capitol in one of the panels of the Cox Corridors portrays the signing of the Louisiana Purchase.  (United States House of Representatives)  There are many such paintings all throughout history featuring this important event and many artists have their own perspective of the event as seen in the various ways it is portrayed.  The portrayal is mostly influenced by the magnitude of emotions that comes with the commemoration of this event as well as the value that citizens put into this particular period in history which is largely responsible for the status that the United States is currently enjoying.

All over the country, there are also civic organizations and establishments that use the Louisiana Purchase to propel their specific and respective goals and objectives.  Even environmental organizations focusing on the protection of wildlife take the precepts of the purchase into consideration in composing the vision and mission of their establishments.   For instance, a zoo in Louisiana is named in commemoration of the said purchase.  The mission of the Louisiana Purchase Gardens and Zoo is to help people develop a sustainable relationship with nature. (Monroe State Government)  This particular incident shows how the principles of the purchase, specifically sustainability in the existence of the additional states covered by the Purchase are used to mirror efforts at maintaining ecological and environmental sustainability.

It is not surprising that many such events are held and implemented in commemoration of the Louisiana Purchase because of the gravity of its impact on the progress and development of the United States.  Albeit being a historical event, the Louisiana Purchase still reverberates in contemporary times in its emergence and reemergence in arts, cultural, and civic activities.  This simply shows how people value this event and how this event had been a tangible, material, and real legacy for all Americans.

Political Violence is a phenomenon in which people and governments around the world us it for meeting their political goals. Different groups as well as individuals believe that their political systems will never respond to their political demands as a result the need for violence is justified by them. Many governments around the world also think that violence could really settle their popularity as well as us them for defending their country from threats and invasions (Political Violence).

 Social violence is organized violence. It is a type of social combat used in context of group interests and goals. Social violence can also be spontaneous. Some psychologists have also classified social violence as pathological violence. Political and social violence have often occurred as a result of disagreements between the two major colonists of the world, America and Britain. One of the major violence between the two nations was the American war of independence (Dennen).

In the late 1700s disagreements between British and American forces occurred which led to bloody violence like the Boston massacre and the Boston tea party. Angry responses from Britain even increased the indignation of the colonials against British forces. This violence ultimately led to the revolutionary wart in the 13 American colonies. Among the things that led for disagreements was resentment of parliamentary taxation, military measures of the British, civil liberty restrictions and legacy of the American ideas related to religion and politics.

One of the main causes of the rebellion between the two was the resentment of the stamp act. The stamp act was imposed by Britain for recovering the debt incurred by colonies during the Indian war and the French war. The act was severely hated by colonists because they felt that only their own colony legislatures had the authority to levy and collect taxes. As a measure of protest many people living in the colonies boycotted British goods and they sometimes tarred and feathered tax collectors also. Boycott of British goods severely affected the British economy. As a result of pressure from the merchants, finally the British parliament repaid the tax reluctantly. But even though the tax was withdrawn, the Americans grew suspicious about the British.

In addition to the stamp act, restriction of civil liberties also strained relations between British and Americans. The act that was used by the British for restricting civil liberties of Americans was the Quartering act. This act required the American colonists to board British troops and provides them with provisions when necessary. Moreover colonial governments were also asked to pay for stationing troops in their colonies. Other measures that led to disagreements were the intolerable acts which closed the Boston harbour until the damages for the Boston tea party was paid. This act also prohibited town meetings of people. In addition to this military measures followed by the British also aroused disagreement between the two. Unpopular military measures followed by Britain like stationing troops at Boston, which led to Boston massacre also ruined the relations between the two colonists.

Another disagreement factor between the British and American colonists was the threat the Americans felt to their religious and political ideas. The British who were protestants did not encourage spreading of catholic faith in colonies. Some colonists even felt that protestant religion and republican government ideas were damaged after the passing of the Quebec act which supported the Catholics.

Several factors have led to the American Revolutionary War such as parliamentary
Taxation, civil liberty restrictions, intolerable British military Measures and the disrespect of the heritage of American religious as well as political ideas. Conceivably the most important of all the measures was the Stamp Act, which was the first act that provoked colonists to dissent. Its revoke fortified the colonists confidence that Parliament had no authority to Charge tax on the colonies without the colonial legislatures consent (Factors of Rebellion. 2010).

Historically British and American colonists have their share of indifferences. One of the major causes of the American war of independence was the disagreement between British and American separatists. There was significant differences in colonial interests between American colonists and that of the British, those who migrated from Britain for religious reasons believed that they have been called to take part in an event which had both spiritual as well as historical significance. They insisted on individual efforts and moralities in order to achieve economic and spiritual success.

The British colonists have a different form of outlook where freedom was given more importance. Freedom in their viewpoint was both individual and collective. However freedom that was expressed in the covenant was restricted through religious ideals. Political differences were unthinkable in this context.

After the withdrawal of British from American mainland, most of the people living in colonies were free holders. They escaped the label of tenants. Individual liberty and equality belief was widely accepted. When compared with the life styles of British colonists, American society was fluid in structure where origins were counted for less than individual achievements. They strived to cerate opportunities to anyone. Moreover American colonists gave importance to education than the British ( HYPERLINK httpwww.skyminds.netanglo-american-civilisationfrom-the-reformation-to-the-birth-of-the-american-nation-1534-1776the-american-colonies-religion-and-politics o Permanent Link to The American colonies  Religion and Politics The American colonies Religion and Politics.2010).

The ability of an army to succeed in the war is dependent on the ability to maintain effective ideology for the war, maintain the necessary personal and military supplies and provide the needed leadership. Though Continental Army suffered great shortage of qualified men and supplies, new recruitments, use of militia groups and states commitments provided the needed supply of men and food while equipments were developed in the few local industries, stolen from the British military and others bought from Europe.

Many scholars conclusions consider Revolutionary War as a conflict undercut by great commitment and patriotism which saw United States emerge as the global force in the 18th and subsequent century.  They argue that the ultimate success was built on the key acceptance of the inferiority that United States suffered in comparison to the highly experienced opponents (British Army).  How then did the Continental Army succeed despite their many raw inexperienced men What were the supply problems during the war How did Washingtons inexperience contribute to poor supplies How did the Congress help or hinder the war effort It is from the above consideration that this paper provides an in-depth evaluation of the Continental Army and its application that saw America emerging victorious from the revolution.  

A brief analysis of Continental Army and Revolution War
Continental Army was formed as a theoretical and philosophical underpinning on American Revolution which saw United States freedom from the British rule and laying the basement towards the formation of the American Army.  John Lockes ideology on political thinking on peoples rights to overthrow leaders created the force to rebel against misrepresentation of the local people in the British government system in the new England presently United States.  Particularly, the Americans established the ideal of republicanism which strongly criticized British model of governing its colonies. In 1775, Continental Congress established a resolution that created the Continental Army.  Under the leadership of George Washington as the Commander-in-Chief, the Army sought to consolidate militia groups and troops in individual states to fight against the British forces.

As the Revolution War intensified, the Continental Congress increasingly assumed the status of a sovereign state but fears reigned of possible evolution of Continental Army into a permanent army.  Notably, the Army went through key reforms that were carved out of renewed efforts by Britain to defeat the revolution, American support by Prussian and French troops, and Congress near bankrupt status towards the end of the war. This army was succeeded by the American Army that was ultimately derived from the cumulative experience.   Historians appear in agreement that this army was highly primitive both in command, constitution and overall planning a factor that makes their success at times to be credited to other forces that lent a hand to them such as militia and French troops.
What were the effects on the Continental Army by having so many raw recruits compared to the British Regulars

(a) Hard to maintain the necessary discipline
Analysts argue that large numbers of raw recruits in the army had both positive and negative implications.  To begin with, it was hard to maintain the needed discipline of the forces that facilitates cooperation at all levels.  With realization of the critical lack of the needed infrastructure especially weapons such as guns, canons, chemicals such as gun powder and the correct attire, Washingtons ideology and actions were completely tied-up and he had to uptake the existing militias into the army.  Notably, the raw recruits subscribed to differing prior commands and therefore constant difficulties in making them adhere to the same codes of communication and discipline.  In December of 1975 more than 5,000 men were recruited to boost the existing numbers which was already becoming feeble.  Taking into consideration of the poor communication mechanisms employed in the army, great fragmentation was inevitable.  Troops in the battle ground were not in harmony with the overall demands and provisions of the congress.  Consequently, they differed from their immediate generals who they considered to fail in securing their needed bounties and weaponry.  On 6th December of 1975 Connecticut troops resolved to leave their camp from their differences with their general.

Washingtons view of a continental army though immediately opposed by the congress was correct.  A fragmented raw recruitment was a major threat to the revolutions ideology.  At this point, Non-Massachusetts recruits equally viewed themselves as outsiders and therefore took longer before they could assimilate the whole ideology of military discipline and working as a team.  Upon empowerment by the congress a factor that saw greater coordination of recruitment at the state level, regiments took a greater centralized focus which ultimately transformed into the United States Army.  However, under the ideology that the fight was theirs, their families and therefore a patriotic liberation, it is critical to identify with the recruits who though poorly skilled, marched with determination to win the revolution that marked the platform of the American supremacy.

(b) Poor supply of military requirements
Military analysts often underscore the logistics involved in maintaining an army in war in the context of American Revolution.  In any army, success depends on the ability to get the necessary supportive personal and weaponry demands.  Continental Armys raw recruits saw a very large number which though had the advantage of outdoing the skeleton British Forces, created great supplies shortage.   Notably, the feeble congress by the time of the revolution lacked a clear military supplies production system a factor that made the army use crude models such as stealing those belonging to the British and imported others from the Caribbean.  Of particular consideration was the great deficit of gun powder that saw large numbers of raw recruits operate in a guerilla style only with the tradition weapons.  Equally in small quantities were small arms and shells which reduced the overall effectiveness of the army against the precise British Army.

The large number of raw recruits further created a great shortage of military attire as both funds and materials were greatly limited.  In what authors see as a desperate move by the army, some of the men resulted to taking their clothes and shoes to their families for mending.  Therefore, a comparison with modern armies with highly organized supplies for periods well longer than anticipated session of wars, continental army supplies was a big joke.  As indicated earlier, Congress realization of the need for greater supply upon the establishment of the Continental Army was perhaps the most effective decision that saw importation of some supplies from France which made latter battles being more effective.  
(c) Buildup of greater confidence in the Army and

While the large entry of raw recruits was perhaps one of the greatest tests for Washingtons military leadership, one cannot fail to give credit to them for commitment that was driven by patriotism for their nation.  Over the years, British had used the simple model of divide and rule tactic that saw various states highly deficient in both the necessary ideology to outdo its army and the critical supplies.  As a result, the notion of a combined force from different states took the colonial power by surprise.  Large numbers of raw recruits created a central confidence among the troops on their noble task to liberate their nation. Taking advantage of the power in numbers, it was hard for Thomas Cage, the Massachusetts British Governor to administer the Intolerable Acts against the large numbers of new troops.  As the British forces sought to destroy the military supplies store in Massachusetts, it was the large numbers of the Continental Army that made it possible to relocate them and therefore progressed with their assault on British Strongholds as planed.  
What was the impact of short enlistment periods

(a) Lack of ample training time
Unlike other professions, military operations are perhaps the only ones that demand the greatest precision both in intelligence and combat applications.  Short enlistment period of one year for the Continental Army therefore created a major shortage of the necessary skills for application of intelligence especially in espionage and spying.  With British Army having great experience especially in radio communication, short enlistment in the Continental Army was very perilous to the Congress vision.  It is estimated that between the years 1975 to 1983 a total number of about 400, 000 men were enlisted in the Continental Army of which about 164, 000 were members of different militias. The war against the highly qualified British Forces was therefore a traditional one as poor training saw uptake and employment of militia tactics as opposed to well coordinated operations.  While their skills cannot be under-looked especially from the great commitment that they were executed with, it makes the whole credit be pegged partially to them as opposed to the congress.    

(b) Poor consideration of joint operation expected in the military
A comparison of the Continental Army with other operations such as the World War II and recent war on mass destruction points at the former poor focus on joint operations.  Any military operation that fails to emphasize on effective joint-operations like the Operation Eagle Crow of 1979 in Iran, risks great failure and surprises.  Short enlistment periods therefore lacked this critical component a consideration that could easily have led to unexpected failures.  However, how applicable was joint operation in this case Analysts indicate that short enlistment was like adding a problem to the already existing ones as it created major discontinuities as opposed to consolidating acquired skills.  By giving the Army a longer enlistment period, it could have been possible to build on the existing regular men codes and upgrade militia mode of application to harmonize attacks and counterattacking the enemy a platform that could have facilitated easier and faster winning of the critical war.

(c) High departure rate from the military and loss of acquired skills
The concept of military operations is a deeply theoretical based undertaking which requires extended support that anchors perseverance and ultimate achievement of the main objective.  As indicated earlier, the concept is indeed hard to get and therefore the need to retain military troops for longer sessions.  As a result, the one year enlistment in the military was a major cause of high departure rates and therefore loss of critical skills to counter the highly qualified Britain Army.  At the fall of 1976 as more support from French forces was entrenched into the continental army, the need for longer enlistment was cited by Washington to be very critical in the emerging challenges from the British forces.  During the siege of New York, the number of men had dropped to about 20, 000 as it continued shrinking after every recruitment session.    

What were the supply problems Washington experienced with food, cloths, and arms and if supplied with the right men and equipment, could the war have been won earlier

(a) Quartermasters logistic issues
An army with poor supplies is no better than a defeated force in that though it may have the correct ideologies as the Continental Army did, it may lack the necessary operationalization force.  Notably, though continental army and indeed all the states were highly positive in their mission, liberating themselves, both nature and human capacity appeared to work against them.  By understanding these difficulties, the Quartermaster (a department to coordinate supplies and transport) was established.  The quarter master therefore asked respective states to provide the necessary food, blankets, clothing and other essential items that were required by the military. Notably the quartermaster took very long before it was fully organized and therefore made more men to suffer greatly in the battle field.  In addition, many people in different states were not cooperative and therefore made the Quartermaster to fail collecting enough supplies for the soldiers.  At this point men in the army were forced to seek alternative means of getting food and clothing by direct borrowing them from immediate households, using ineffective and old attire that reduced their efficiencies greatly.

Transport system for different supplies to men in the field was very poor.   The supplies collected by the quartermaster often failed to get to the men in the battle field due to transport problems.  Even when they got to them, it was late and perishables were already spoilt and could not be useful to them.  Indeed, even people involved in transporting the same supplies were never completely honest and major supplies were diverted for personal gains as the army was patriotically fighting for the nation.

(b) Monetary issues
A fact that scholars often cite to have worked against Washingtons supply consideration was lack of enough funds. During this session the Congress lacked enough Gold and Silver, as paper money was by then more worthless, to buy military requirements from Europe or even food from farmers.  This created a dilemma for Washington in maintaining both recruitments and army operations as the battle ground became almost a trial and error undertaking.  As indicated earlier, part of the motivation to men in the army was the expected pay by the congress.  However, the supply which came in form of paper currency was equally limited as congress remained undecided on models to maintain their motivation high.  This put a great disadvantage to the Continental Army against the well motivated British soldiers.
(c) Lack of enough skills training services to the soldiers
One key undoing for the Continental Army was poor skills development which resulted largely due to short enlistment sessions, poor cohesion and interstates enmity that made war to initially be fought separately.  As a result, the uptake of militia skills was a major retrogressive aspect in that it created a reduced force in search for more effective intelligence and counterattacks mechanisms.  To emphasize on this fact, a major difference was evident after the arrival of Baron von Steuben from Prussia who facilitated strong development of counter skills and survival strategies.  Indeed, it was after inculcation of new skills from Baron and latter arrival and support by General Rochambeau that siege of New York in the Battle of Chesapeake was successful and Britain had to surrender.  

How did Washingtons inexperience contribute to the lack of men and equipment
(a) Emphasis on Civilian control of the military
While reference to Washington has always been heroic, few writers have tried to focus on how he greatly contributed to key inefficiencies and particularly on lack of enough men and equipment to the Continental Army.  To begin with Washington emphasized on application of civilian control in the military. Civilian control of the military withdraws the direct command of the military and entrusts it on political leadership.  As a result, the experienced professionals become directly sidelined as dynamics of the political process especially in a poorly defined democracy (such as United States during the American Revolution era) are highly egocentric.  At this point, Washington can only be considered to be selfish because he understood Congress supported him irrespective of his inexperience but he never cited the need for a more qualified commander-in-chief.

By supporting the civilian control model, Washington, unknowingly rendered him powerless in that both equipments and men for the army had to be approved and manned by the Congress.  As a result, reverse trend took control of all supplies where Washington had to report to the congress for supplies.  This model limited the overall time for facilitating supplies that greatly impaired the respective efficiencies in the field.  A good example is the 1776 Washingtons recommendations to broaden recruitment base which was not directly accepted.  It was indeed hard for the political elites in the congress to figure out the real situation in the field and therefore major delays that could have led to great defeat in the field.

(b) Poor planning and lack of long term focus
Army planning and management calls for strong vision that goes well beyond the men operating in the field. Continental Army planning however assumed a highly fragmented operation that saw respective men easily loose faith in their immediate leaders and the whole congress.  Washingtons proposal and emphasis to maintain short time enlistment had the following negating effects on availability of supplies and more soldiers. First, most men from the military created a negative perception of the military and discouraged others from joining it to fight the patriotic war.  This negative implication could have been avoided if Washington had long-term plans and extended enlistment periods effectively.  As indicated earlier, both payments, diseases, war equipments and even lack of enough food were enough considerations to make a man change his mind and indeed perception of the revolution.

With communities understanding how their sons were suffering, their refusal to give supplies can be understood.  Though they understood the negative implications that British rule had to them, it was hard to compare it with the seemingly worse conditions marred by torture in the hands of British troops, suffering from harsh weather conditions and unpredicted deaths, with unclear visionary revolution.  Washingtons plan failed to factor these shocking effects by the community and therefore made his plan susceptible to public emotions. The public could not easily release their sons to go and suffer in their military.  

(d) Intensive use of local militia groups
Throughout the war, Washington appeared to lack an effective model that could empower the Continental Army.  In particular the constant reference to militia groups created a consideration that there was enough backup against the British forces.  Key Militias were called in battles such as the Cowpeas and the siege of New York.  In the former Battle of Cowpeas, militias such as Virginia Battalion led by Triplett Frank, Georgia militia under Cunningham and North Carolina Militia led by McDowell made Washington to have a great win over the British troops. Owing to their long time experience, Washington should have considered assimilating these militias into the army, however, lack of this consideration maintained a clear deficit of men to the Continental Army.    

How did Congress help or hinder the war effort. Was new technology available that could have helped the young American Army

(a) Congresss help on the war effort
Congress was perhaps the most instrumental factor in determining the orientation of the Continental Army.  Its input was however both supportive and at times a major obstacle that largely limited and disappointed the Armys operations.  First, the congress was made up of a congregation of strong republicans such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams among others (generally referred to as the founding fathers) who coined the need for a revolution.  Indeed, most historians have differed on the notion that Congress was at any time an obstacle against the Continental Army by pointing that it could never negate its very own initiated ideology.  Congress formed the final reference in decision making towards raising and gathering supplies for the army.  The congress raised money, procured food and even military equipments for the army in the field.  Immediately after Washingtons assumption of the role as the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, he pointed at the critical shortage of gunpowder and small arms.  About 90 of the supplies had been imported from France by the end of year 1776.

As revolution intensified, Congress assumed a more central role in the propagation of the war especially in creating the new vision.  Though it was not easy for the new brooding administration to anchor the revolution process due to non-existence of relevant infrastructure it managed to hold high the portrait of new America to the nation and the army.  The drawing of declaration of independence created a new force in Washingtons men who were appearing exhausted towards the end of war.  Indeed, Washington held the declaration in his hands as he led over 20,000 men in the siege of New York.

(b) Congress as an obstacle to the war  
However, it is important to indicate that Congress equally remained a major obstacle towards the war effort.  As indicated earlier, the congress failed to emphasize on high professionalism from the beginning, a factor that almost saw the army being defeated during its war in New York. Washington was indeed poorly qualified to take the role of the Commander-in-Chief, however, congress made no efforts in seeking a more qualified person as the war progressed. In addition, Congresss emphasis on remaining the ultimate decision maker on core issues of the Army caused major delays especially in supplies for war.  This made it hard to strengthen the Army against the highly experienced British soldiers.

Though some analysts argue that it is essential to look at Congress in the context of time and the immediate difficulties they faced by then, a factor which is indeed correct, it is essential at times to compare it with present military operations.  The congress failed to establish a strong incentive that would bind the army to the long-term vision of liberating America.  The congress failed to honor payments to the men who were leaving the army after their enlistment was over.  This created a very negative image that even saw some residents resist cooperating with the Continental Army especially in supplying them with relevant supplies. Another major failure that Congress made was withdrawing its support to the Continental Army as it appeared that British was winning in the New York war even after the Declaration of Independence.  However, Washington retreated before he was supported by more militias and French soldiers to ultimately defeat the British Army which appeared to be gathering momentum.  

Though technology was still less developed compared to present times, it is important to note that the existing one could still have greatly helped the Continental Army in defeating the British. Globally, this technology was available especially from Europe where mass production to support large conflicts was done.  For instance, Prussia, France and Germany had well established production systems for war equipments.  However, this technology was only partially available to the continental army as New England lacked production units for the new communication and war equipments.  As a result, they had to be imported from Europe while others were impounded from the British forces.

How could this poorly equipped army beat the most experienced standing army of the time
Continental Armys ability to win the war against the highly experienced British Army was a culmination of a number of factors.  First, the underlying spirit for revolution against the British government undercut the whole Continental Armys driving force as outlined by the Congress.  The drive which Washington greatly utilized created a sense of liberty, freedom and therefore the ultimate break from the bondage of the British.  Notably, this ideology assumed an ascending tempo which climaxed in The Declaration of Independence and surrender of the British forces. The war was therefore an ideological one, a war necessitated by the time for change having reached, it could not be lost.

Compared to the British Army, Continental Army under Washington was greatly inexperienced.  As a result, Congress sought assistance from more experienced personnel to train the men in the battle ground.  For instance, Baron von Steuben from Prussia greatly helped in acquisition of new skills which improved tactical approaches in attacks and counterattacks on British Army.  Other supportive efforts included French army and Spanish men who were equally displeased by the British both in New England and in Europe.

Finally, the input of the local militias provided an invaluable force against the British forces whish Washington relied on to win major battles during the revolution.  Though the militias operated largely from a localized perspective, they created the required large numbers of men required to defeat the British Army.  By using the militias, Washington was able to avoid having an extremely large army factoring the notion that even the regular men he held were already hard to maintain and support with required supplies.

Conclusion
From the above discussion, this paper concludes by supporting the thesis statement, though Continental Army suffered great shortage of qualified men and supplies, new recruitments, use of militia groups and states commitments provided the needed supply of men and food while equipments were developed in the few local industries, stolen from the British military and others bought from Europe. Supplies to the Continental Army wit men and military requirements turned out to be one of the major setbacks for its effective operation against the highly qualified British Army.  From the establishment of the Army, it came out clearly that neither the Congress nor the Commander-In-Chief, Washington, had the correct experience to navigate key operations for the vision of revolution to be realized.  It further came out in the discussion that both Washington and Congress assumed key crucial responsibilities that defined the operations of the Army however, they equally wielded major limiting considerations for faster progress. If planning was executed in a more strategic model that factored long-term orientation, it is no doubt that this war could have been won faster that it took.  However, external forces were very crucial as they came to reinforce the fast dwindling Continental Force and leveraged the ultimate defeat and surrender by the British.