Brian Robertson
Office: Founder’s Hall, 217 O
Brian.robertson@tamuct.edu
Phone: (254) 519-5441
Office Hours: by Appointment
History 316
Military History of the United States
Course Description:
The purpose of this course is to introduce undergraduate students to the study of
American military affairs and history. Through the reading of monographs, attendance of
lectures, and participation in class discussions, this course will acquaint students with the
political, economic, social, cultural, and intellectual forces which have shaped American
military history, military doctrine, military theory, civil-military relations, and American
domestic and foreign policy. Lectures and homework assignments will focus on
particularly important themes or events; no attempt will be made by the instructor to
cover every aspect of American military history; the textbook will provide coverage for
the entire range of the course.
Academic Integrity:
Academic Integrity and Professional Responsibility
I take violations of academic integrity—whether cheating, plagiarism, etc.—with the
utmost seriousness.
I use The American Historical Association’s Statement on Standards of Professional
Conduct to define plagiarism as the appropriation of “the exact wording of another author
without attribution,” and the borrowing of “distinctive and significant research findings
or interpretations” without proper citation. Most cases of plagiarism represent a failure to
properly paraphrase, quote, and cite sources.
Forms of Plagiarism
The most obvious form of inappropriate borrowing involves the verbatim pirating of
paragraphs, pages, or entire papers or chapters without quotation or attribution. The large
amount of copying involved in such cases makes the occurrence of plagiarism
undeniable.
Most plagiarism is more subtle. Writers plagiarize, for example, when they fail to use
quotation marks around borrowed material and to cite the source, use an inadequate
paraphrase that makes only superficial changes to a text, or neglect to cite the source of a
paraphrase. The result is often a patchwork of original and plagiarized texts that echoes
the original sources in recognizable ways. The following example illustrates these forms
of plagiarism by setting a passage from Francis Parkman’s Montcalm and Wolfe next to a
fictional plagiarism:
Montcalm and Wolfe
Plagiarized Version
1
All, and more than all, that France had lost
England had won. Now, for the first time,
she was beyond dispute the greatest of
maritime and colonial Powers. Portugal
and Holland, her precursors in ocean
enterprise, had long ago fallen hopelessly
behind. Two great rivals remained, and she
had humbled the one and swept the other
from her path. Spain, with vast American
possessions, was sinking into the decay
which is one of the phenomena of modern
history; while France, of late a most
formidable competitor, had abandoned the
contest in despair. England was mistress of
the seas.1
1
Francis Parkman, Montcalm and
Wolfe (Boston: Little, Brown, and
Company, 1885), 411.
France’s loss was England’s gain. For the first time, the English found
themselves the greatest of maritime and colonial powers.
The countries of Portugal and Holland, which had ventured seaward long
before England, had fallen hopelessly behind.
“Two great rivals remained,” wrote Francis Parkman of Spain and Franc
“and she had humbled the one and swept the other from her path.”1
Spain, with vast American possessions, was sinking into decay, and
France, although a fierce rival before the war, abandoned the competition
in despair. England ruled the waves.
1
Francis Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co
411.
First, the plagiarized version copies Parkman’s language almost verbatim in two places,
without using quotation marks or citing the source: the phrases “the greatest of maritime
and colonial powers” and “Spain, with vast American possessions, was sinking into
decay” appear in both passages. Second, the plagiarized version paraphrases Parkman’s
work poorly by retaining too much of the original author’s language and organization. In
one place, for example, the writer altered only a single word, taking Parkman’s claim that
France “abandoned the contest in despair” and changing it to “abandoned
the competition in despair.” Such cosmetic alterations indicate a lack of synthesis and
original thought and represent a theft of Parkman’s text. The plagiarized version also
echoes Parkman too closely from beginning to end by following his organization
slavishly. Every component of the original has a parallel in the plagiarized version, and
they appear in exactly the same order. Parkman’s ending, “England was the mistress of
the seas,” for example, becomes “England ruled the waves.” Third, the plagiarized
version fails to cite Parkman’s work as the source of the entire paraphrase (although it
does correctly cite the small amount of quoted material).
One way for the writer to solve these problems would be to rewrite the entire passage in
his or her own words, emphasizing only those points important to the writer’s larger
argument, and then cite Parkman. If the writer wants to retain Parkman’s words and
organization, however, he or she might quote the entire passage from Montcalm and
Wolfe and cite its source.
Note that the illustration does not demonstrate all possible forms of plagiarism. For
example, making use of an author’s distinctive interpretation without giving credit also
constitutes plagiarism. In the passage above, however, Parkman does not put forth an
original interpretation that requires citation.
Intent
2
The AHA considers plagiarism to be the failure to properly acknowledge the work of
another, regardless of intent. The Modern Language Association also takes this position
in the sixth and most recent edition of its MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers.
Other writing guides and college handbooks similarly maintain that plagiarism can be,
and often is, unintentional. Claiming otherwise provides easy absolution for sloppy work
and convenient cover for plagiarists, since intent to deceive is often impossible to prove.
An instructor does not need to consider intent until after he or she establishes that
plagiarism has occurred, when it becomes important in assessing sanctions.
Plagiarism and Copyright Infringement
Although the concepts of plagiarism and copyright infringement overlap, two
fundamental differences distinguish them. First, plagiarism is most often an ethical
offense, while copyright infringement always carries the potential for legal consequences.
Second, plagiarism is primarily about copying material without proper attribution, while
copyright infringement is concerned with borrowing significant portions of a work
without permission from the copyright holder, whether or not the holder is cited. If a
person, for example, republishes a volume of George Bancroft’s nineteenth-century
classic History of the United States of America and claims to be the author, he or she
commits plagiarism but not copyright infringement, since the copyright expired many
years ago. The individual would suffer the condemnation of the historical profession, and
may have committed fraud, but would not have broken any copyright laws. If a person,
however, incorporates an entire chapter of a more recent historical work into a new book
without the permission of the copyright holder, the person is not guilty of plagiarism if he
or she cites the source. But the person does infringe on the original author’s copyright,
whether or not the wronged author is properly credited.
Hence, if you plagiarize another student’s or author’s work, you will fail the course and I
will file a formal record of this violation with the Chair of the History Department and
the Dean of the College. To learn more about plagiarism, visit:
http://www.tamuct.edu/departments/library/plagiarism.php
Americans with Disabilities Act:
Any student who, because of a disabling condition, may require special arrangements in
order to meet course requirements should contact me as soon as possible so that
necessary accommodations can be made. Students should present appropriate
verification of need for assistance to the Office of Disability Support and Access, Warrior
Hall, Room 212F. See also:
http://www.tamuct.edu/departments/disabilitysupport/index.php
Course Requirements:
There will be two essay exams—a midterm and a final—based on the two monographs
assigned for the course (opened book). A weekly quiz based on the previous lecture will
be given on every Wednesday. Discussion sessions will focus on the assigned readings.
Other than the course text book, Students are required to write books review on the two
books assigned.
3
Regular attendance. Material from the lectures is designed to provide the preponderance of
tested and quizzed material and not reproduce the readings. It is therefore necessary to
attend lectures to pass this class. In the unlikely event of severe illness or extraordinary
circumstances, a student MUST provide written documentation to receive an excused
absence.
Grade Breakdown
Your final grade will be based on a mid-term examination (100 points), quizzes (100
points total), two book-reviews (100 points each), class participation (50 points) and a
final examination (100 points). Grades will be determined by the following scale: (F) 059%; (D) 60-69%; (C) 70-79%; (B) 80-89%; and (A) 90-100%.
Required Readings
McPherson, James. For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1998.
Millett, Allan. For the Common Defense: A Military History of the United States from 1607 to 2012. New York: The
Free Press, 2012.
Sorley, Lewis. A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and the Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam.
New York: Harvest, 2007.
Journal/Newspaper Articles:
Vincent Cirillo, "More Fatal Than Powder and Shot: dysentery in the U.S. Army during the Mexican War, 1846-48,”
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Vol. 52:3 (Summer 2009): 400-13.
Bruce Cuming, “On the Strategy and Morality of American Nuclear Policy in Korea,
1950 to the Present,” Social Science Japan Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Apr., 1998):
57-70.
Gregory A. Daddis, "Out of Balance: Evaluating American Strategy in Vietnam, 1968-72," War & Society 32:3
(October 2013), pp.252-70.
James Drake, “Restraining Atrocity: The Conduct of King Philip's War,” The New England Quarterly, Vol. 70, No. 1
(Mar., 1997), pp. 33-56.
Gregory Foster, “Civil-Military Relations: The Postmodern Democratic Challenge,” World Affairs, Vol. 167:3 (Winter
2005): 91-100.
Gian Gentile, “A Slightly Better War: A Narrative and It’s Defects,” World Affairs, Vol. 171:1 (Summer 2008), pp. 57.
James R. Holmes, “Theodore Roosevelt and Elihu Root: International Lawmen,” World Affairs, Vol. 169:4 (Spring
2007): 189-198.
Robert Kerby, “The Militia System and the State Militias in the War of 1812,” Indiana Magazine of History, Vol. 73,
No. 2 (June 1977): 102-124.
Walter LaFeber, “A Note on the Mercantilistic Imperialism of Alfred Thayer Mahan,” The Mississippi Valley
Historical Review, Vol. 48:4 (Mar., 1962): 674-685.
Keir A. Lieber, “The New History of World War I and What It Means for International Relations Theory,”
International Security, Vol. 32: 2 (Fall, 2007): 155-191.
4
Brian McAllister Linn, “The American Way of War,” OAH Magazine of History, Vol. 22:4 (Oct., 2008): 19-23
Jenny Hale Pulsipher, “Our Sages are Sageless: A Letter on Massachusetts Indian Policy
after King Philip's War,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 58,
No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 431.
Richard H. Kohn, "The Inside History of the Newburgh Conspiracy: American and the Coup d’Etat," The William and
Mary Quarterly, Third Series 27, no. 2, (1970): 187-220.
Matthew M. Oyos, “Theodore Roosevelt, Congress, and the Military: U.S. Civil-Military Relations in the Early
Twentieth Century,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 30:2 (Jun., 2000): 312-330.
David Rosenberg, “Atomic Strategy and the Hydrogen Bomb Decision,” The Journal of
American History, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Jun., 1979): 62-87.
Peter Spiegel and Jonathan Weisman, “Behind Afghan War Debate, A Battle of Two Books Rages,” The Wall Street
Journal (October 7, 2009), A1.
Russell Stewart, Ed., “The Army of The Cold War From The “New Look” to Flexible
Response,” in Military History Volume II: The United States Army in a Global Era (Washington, DC: Center
of Military History, 2010), 251-284.
Samuel R. Williamson, “The Origins of World War I,” The Journal of Interdisciplinary
History, Vol. 18, No. 4, (Spring, 1988), pp. 795-818
Expected Learning Outcomes
Upon successful completion of this course, students should be able to:
1. Identify and understand the role of the military in the development of the United
States.
2. Demonstrate knowledge of the origins and development of modern military theory and
doctrine.
3. Identify the relationship between the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of war.
4. Develop analytical arguments in written and/or oral forms.
5. Identify methodologies of historical, literary, philosophical, and/or aesthetic research
and recognize their applicability to everyday life.
6. Comprehend the interrelationship between air, sea, and land warfare and the
importance of combined arms.
7. Comprehend the changes in Western warfare and the importance of certain themes –
technology, leadership, logistics, discipline, doctrine, geography.
8. Understand the nine principles of warfare as they are revealed in historical events.
5
9. Comprehend the civic-military relationship in American history.
Course Schedule
Week 1:
Monday January 18: No Class—Martin Luther King Holiday
Wednesday January 20: Course Introduction
Week 2:
Monday January 25: Library visit/library quiz
Wednesday January 27:
Early Settlers and Colonial Militias; Millett, Chapter One;
Week 3:
Monday February 1: Colonial Wars and Warfare; Millet, Chapter Two.
Wednesday February 3: Quiz; Discussion; read and bring to class:
James Drake, “Restraining Atrocity: The Conduct of King Philip's War,” The New
England Quarterly, Vol. 70, No. 1 (Mar., 1997), pp. 33-56.
Jenny Hale Pulsipher, “Our Sages are Sageless: A Letter on Massachusetts Indian Policy
after King Philip's War,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 58,
No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 431.
Week 4:
Monday February 8: Read: the American Revolution; Millet, Chapter Three;
Wednesday February 10: Quiz; discussion; read and bring to class:
Wayne Lee, “Early American Ways of War: A New Reconaissance, 1600-1815,” The
Historical Journal 44 (2001), 269–89.
6
Don Higginbotham, “American Historians and the Military History of the American
Revolution,” The American Historical Review 70: 1 (October 1964), 18-34.
Week 5:
Monday February 15: Lecture: Civic-Military Relations and Democracy; Millet,
Chapter Four.
Wednesday February 17: Quiz and Discussion, read:
Richard H. Kohn, "The Inside History of the Newburgh Conspiracy: American and the
Coup d’Etat," The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series 27, no. 2, (1970): 187-220.
And
Gregory Foster, “Civil-Military Relations: The Postmodern Democratic Challenge,”
World Affairs, Vol. 167:3 (Winter 2005): 91-100.
Week 6:
Monday February 22: The Armed Forces and National Expansion; Millet, Chapter Five;
Wednesday February 24: Quiz and Discussion:
Vincent Cirillo, "More Fatal Than Powder and Shot: dysentery in the U.S. Army during
the Mexican War, 1846-48,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Vol. 52:3 (Summer
2009): 400-13.
And
Robert Kerby, “The Militia System and the State Militias in the War of 1812,” Indiana
Magazine of History, Vol. 73, No. 2 (June 1977): 102-124.
Week 7:
Monday February 29: The Civil War, 1861 to 1862, Millet, Chapter Six and Seven
Wednesday March 2: Quiz and class Discussion on For Cause and Comrades: Why
Men Fought in the Civil War (book review due).
Week 8:
Monday March 7: The Armed Forces and Postwar Mobilization; Millet Chapter 8;
7
Wednesday March 9: Midterm Examination
Week 9
Monday March 14: Spring Break
Wednesday March 16: Spring Break
Week 10:
Monday March 21: Military Expansion; Millet Chapter 10.
Wednesday March 23: Quiz and discussion, read:
James R. Holmes, “Theodore Roosevelt and Elihu Root: International Lawmen,” World
Affairs, Vol. 169:4 (Spring 2007): 189-198.
And
Matthew M. Oyos, “Theodore Roosevelt, Congress, and the Military: U.S. Civil-Military
Relations in the Early Twentieth Century,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 30:2
(Jun., 2000): 312-330.
Week 11:
Monday March 28: World War I; Millet Chapter 11,
Wednesday March 30: Quiz and discussion, read:
Keir A. Lieber, “The New History of World War I and What It Means for International
Relations Theory,” International Security, Vol. 32: 2 (Fall, 2007): 155-191.
And
Samuel R. Williamson, “The Origins of World War I,” The Journal of Interdisciplinary
History, Vol. 18, No. 4, (Spring, 1988), pp. 795-818
Week 12:
Monday April 4: World War II; Millett Chapter 12 and 13
Wednesday April 6: Quiz 7 and film, “Why We Fight.”
Week 13:
Monday April 11: Nuclear Deterrence and Collective Security, Millet Chapter 15
8
Wednesday April 13: Quiz and discussion, read:
David Rosenberg, “Atomic Strategy and the Hydrogen Bomb Decision,” The Journal of
American History, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Jun., 1979): 62-87.
And
Bruce Cuming, “On the Strategy and Morality of American Nuclear Policy in Korea,
1950 to the Present,” Social Science Japan Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Apr., 1998):
57-70.
Week 14:
Monday April 18: American Defense Policy for Extended Deterrence and Containment,
Millet 16
Wednesday April 20: Quiz and discussion, read:
Herman S. Wolk, "The 'New Look'," Air Force Magazine, v. 65, no. 8, (August 2003):
80-83.
And
Russell Stewart, Ed., “The Army of The Cold War From The ‘New Look’ to Flexible
Response,” in Military History Volume II: The United States Army in a Global
Era (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 2010), 251-284.
Week 15
Monday April 25: The Vietnam War and American Military Policy; Millet Chapter 17.
Wednesday April 27: Quiz and class discussion on A Better War: The Unexamined
Victories and the Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam (book review due).
Gregory A. Daddis, "Out of Balance: Evaluating American Strategy in Vietnam, 196872," War & Society 32:3 (October 2013), pp.252-70.
Gian Gentile, “A Slightly Better War: A Narrative and It’s Defects,” World Affairs, Vol.
171:1 (Summer 2008), pp. 57.
Peter Spiegel and Jonathan Weisman, “Behind Afghan War Debate, A Battle of Two
Books Rages,” The Wall Street Journal (October 7, 2009), A1
Week 16:
9
Monday May 2: The End of the Cold War and American Military Policy; Millet Chapter
18.
Wednesday May 5: Final Examination
Instructor reserves the right to amend this syllabus at any time.
10