bunker hill by nathaniel philbrick sparknotes

The partner left out of the Whig-to-Progressive, neo-whig–to–neo-progressive two-step here, although it waits impatiently in the wings, is the imperial school. But a longer and broader perspective on Revolution historiography suggests more continuity-and a higher likelihood of persisting interpretive conflict-than this declaration of historiographical independence would suggest. Well, it’s good to see the problem named and for editors to explain the ample and successful efforts of the historians in the volume to think big and to combine the social and the intellectual in the cultural. Fortunately, though, they bring us essays that go international, “institutional,” and “cultural” while bridging patrician-plebeian divides. This battle between top-down and bottom-up intellectual and social historians has reinforced a movement away from “the origins of the United States” and “toward explorations of larger Atlantic or continental arenas.” As a result, for American historians, despite “the best-seller list,” Kamensky and Gray say, “the Revolution has come to occupy a distinctly less prominent place than it held a generation ago” (p.

The historiography of the American Revolution has been dominated by two schools of thought, equally intolerant of each other and, Gray and Kamensky imply, allergic to newer approaches.

Clearing the decks for thirty-three essayists in their very useful entry in the Oxford Handbook series, Edward Gray and Jane Kamensky make a graceful, yet telling, goodbye-to-all-that move.

Bunker hill by nathaniel philbrick sparknotes