J P Clark should be congratulated for his authoritative survey of the US Army’s development over ... more J P Clark should be congratulated for his authoritative survey of the US Army’s development over a turbulent century as its commitments burgeoned and the complexity of its operations broadened. He selects a generational lens in attempting to provide some degree of order to the subject. He suggests the century witnessed four ‘distinct generations, each deriving a unique identity’ (p. x) from its experience. Each of these generations was ‘defined by a distinct method of preparing for war’ (p. 4). Clark is not concerned with chronological exactitude but stamps each generation with a discrete identity (pp. 1–4). His aim is to delineate each generation by reference to its experience at points of historical time, showing ‘how the context of each generation imparted a unique professionalism’. The four generations include: firstly, those who ended their service before 1861; secondly, those who served throughout the American Civil War of 1861–65; thirdly, those who were commissioned after it; and fourthly, those commissioned before 1917, a generation that is less clearly defined than the other three. Clark labels them ‘the founders, the Civil War and composite generations’ – as many who served long after 1865 had been commissioned during the war – ‘and the progressive that followed after 1889’ (p. 5). The US Progressive Era sought progress and reform by study, reason and reformed institutions. Military personnel of this last generation, with the closing of the frontier, became more conscious of foreign challenges. Each generation became attracted to its own ‘constellation’ of ideas depending on historical challenges and circumstances. Though far from unsophisticated, US military thought during this period was fundamentally derivative – that is, its intellectual structures and models were imitative, usually imported from Europe, first France and then after 1871, Germany.
J P Clark should be congratulated for his authoritative survey of the US Army’s development over ... more J P Clark should be congratulated for his authoritative survey of the US Army’s development over a turbulent century as its commitments burgeoned and the complexity of its operations broadened. He selects a generational lens in attempting to provide some degree of order to the subject. He suggests the century witnessed four ‘distinct generations, each deriving a unique identity’ (p. x) from its experience. Each of these generations was ‘defined by a distinct method of preparing for war’ (p. 4). Clark is not concerned with chronological exactitude but stamps each generation with a discrete identity (pp. 1–4). His aim is to delineate each generation by reference to its experience at points of historical time, showing ‘how the context of each generation imparted a unique professionalism’. The four generations include: firstly, those who ended their service before 1861; secondly, those who served throughout the American Civil War of 1861–65; thirdly, those who were commissioned after it; and fourthly, those commissioned before 1917, a generation that is less clearly defined than the other three. Clark labels them ‘the founders, the Civil War and composite generations’ – as many who served long after 1865 had been commissioned during the war – ‘and the progressive that followed after 1889’ (p. 5). The US Progressive Era sought progress and reform by study, reason and reformed institutions. Military personnel of this last generation, with the closing of the frontier, became more conscious of foreign challenges. Each generation became attracted to its own ‘constellation’ of ideas depending on historical challenges and circumstances. Though far from unsophisticated, US military thought during this period was fundamentally derivative – that is, its intellectual structures and models were imitative, usually imported from Europe, first France and then after 1871, Germany.
Uploads
Papers by Garrett McKinnon