|
I was browsing the shelf at the University of Idaho
this last weekend, and I found Ronald Hoffman and Peter J. Albert, ed.,
_Arms and Independence: The Military Character of the American Revolution_
(Charlottesville, Va.: University Press of Virginia, 1984). One essay that
I found especially intriguing was Steve Rosswurm, "The Philadelphia Militia,
1775-1783: Active Duty and Active Radicalism." Rosswurm's argument is that
the Philadelphia militia was politically radical, and being armed, used their
power on the side of political reform of a radical, potentially socialist
nature. I have checked a few of his claims, and find them at least
supported by the facts. Nor should I be surprised; one of the strongest
arguments of the time in favor of militias, rather than standing armies, was the
essentially egalitarian and republican nature of the militia as an
institution.
Clayton E. Cramer
|
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
