Although a poor replacement for a professional military in wartime, the militia embodied a set of ideas that defined attitudes toward social order, civic responsibility, and the nature and relative powers of the government. It was the supreme expression of civic values in a traditional, communal, agrarian village society. Rowe argues that the antebellum militia should be seen as a social and political institution, rather than a military one, and contends that it is a key to understanding the political and social values of early 19th century America. Ultimately, changing social and political values, demographic change and mobility, and finally the dramatic expansion of federal power occasioned by the Civil War would destroy the traditional militia. Because the militia's functions, failures, and meanings were most clearly apparent in new settlements along the frontier, Rowe examines three case studies that represent successive leaps across the Appalachians (Kentucky), the Mississippi (Missouri), and the Great Plains (Washington Territory). The first generation of settlers in Kentucky deliberately built a formal militia organization, in part for self-defense, in part as an explicit ideological and political statement. Despite both pre-existing Franco-Spanish militia and federal attempts to use the Territory in militia reform, American settlers in Missouri created a traditional Anglo-American militia there. A generation later, settlers in Washington Territory attempted to do the same, but the effort dissolved in a bitter controversy over the territorial governor's declaration of martial law.

Anxious to change his "goody-goody" image, eight-year-old Guy is delighted when Isabelle the Itch offers to teach him the art of being a funny pest. Her lessons end up teaching them both what being a tough guy really means.

This book is a comprehensive 2002 analysis of the Spanish left during the civil war of 1936-9.

In the early decades of the American Republic, American soldiers demonstrated and defined their beliefs about the nature of American republicanism and how they, as citizens and soldiers, were participants in the republican experiment through their service. In For Liberty and the Republic, Ricardo A. Herrera examines the relationship between soldier and citizen from the War of Independence through the first year of the Civil War. The work analyzes an idealized republican ideology as a component of soldiering in both peace and war. Herrera argues that American soldiers’ belief system—the military ethos of republicanism—drew from the larger body of American political thought. This ethos illustrated and informed soldiers’ faith in an inseparable connection between bearing arms on behalf of the republic, and earning and holding citizenship in it. Despite the undeniable existence of customs, organizations, and behaviors that were uniquely military, the officers and enlisted men of the regular army, states’ militias, and wartime volunteers were the products of their society, and they imparted what they understood as important elements of American thought into their service. Drawing from military and personal correspondence, journals, orderly books, militia constitutions, and other documents in over forty archives in twenty-three states, Herrera maps five broad, interrelated, and mutually reinforcing threads of thought constituting soldiers’ beliefs: Virtue; Legitimacy; Self-governance; Glory, Honor, and Fame; and the National Mission. Spanning periods of war and peace, these five themes constituted a coherent and long-lived body of ideas that informed American soldiers’ sense of identity for generations.

This book shows how disinformation spread by partisan organizations and media platforms undermines institutional legitimacy on which authoritative information depends.

How three key figures in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran built ruthless irregular warfare campaigns that are eroding American power. In Three Dangerous Men, defense expert Seth Jones argues that the US is woefully unprepared for the future of global competition. While America has focused on building fighter jets, missiles, and conventional warfighting capabilities, its three principal rivals—Russia, Iran, and China—have increasingly adopted irregular warfare: cyber attacks, the use of proxy forces, propaganda, espionage, and disinformation to undermine American power. Jones profiles three pioneers of irregular warfare in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran who adapted American techniques and made huge gains without waging traditional warfare: Russian Chief of Staff Valery Gerasimov; the deceased Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani; and vice chairman of China’s Central Military Commission Zhang Youxia. Each has spent his career studying American power and devised techniques to avoid a conventional or nuclear war with the US. Gerasimov helped oversee a resurgence of Russian irregular warfare, which included attempts to undermine the 2016 and 2020 US presidential elections and the SolarWinds cyber attack. Soleimani was so effective in expanding Iranian power in the Middle East that Washington targeted him for assassination. Zhang Youxia presents the most alarming challenge because China has more power and potential at its disposal. Drawing on interviews with dozens of US military, diplomatic, and intelligence officials, as well as hundreds of documents translated from Russian, Farsi, and Mandarin, Jones shows how America’s rivals have bloodied its reputation and seized territory worldwide. Instead of standing up to autocratic regimes, Jones demonstrates that the United States has largely abandoned the kind of information, special operations, intelligence, and economic and diplomatic action that helped win the Cold War. In a powerful conclusion, Jones details the key steps the United States must take to alter how it thinks about—and engages in—competition before it is too late.

Map best viewed on a tablet device. An account of the Spanish civil war which portrays the struggles of the war, as well as discussing the wider implications of the revolution in the Republican zone, the emergence of brutal dictatorship on the nationalist side and the extent to which the Spanish war prefigured World War II.