When it comes to my own work on the British occupation of Philadelphia, I have two main areas of focus. For each I've crafted a "meta-question" and one or more specific questions. The meta-question asks about a general concept, not tied to any particular period or event. These questions are big and somewhat philosophical and my work won't answer them but will (I hope) contribute in the refinement of an answer. The specific questions are tied more directly to particular points in time and space. These are the questions to which I will give an answer, supported as much as possible by solid evidence and logical analysis.
So, without further adieu:
Major Questions:
- Effects of the occupation
- Meta-Question - What factors contribute to the effectiveness of a military occupation against a rebellious or insurgent population?
- Specific question(s) - To what extent, and through what means, did the British occupation(s) of American port cities help and/or hinder the battle for the 'hearts and minds' of the American colonists? How did Philadelphians' perception of Great Britain, her armies and her objectives, change as a result of the military's occupation of the city?
- Meaning of "occupation"
- Meta-Question - What does it mean for a country, an area or a city to be forcibly "occupied"?
- Specific question(s) - Should the British military's taking, holding and governing of Philadelphia in 1777/1778 be regarded as an "occupation"? Should the periods of local dominance by the Associators, Constitutionalists, and militia that bracket the British stay be regarded as "occupations"? What similarities and differences exist in the way Philadelphia's people, particular the Quakers and others who desired to maintain neutrality in the Revolutionary conflict, experienced these periods?
No comments:
Post a Comment