An anomaly among Britain’s North American colonies, Pennsylvania initially lacked an organized militia in its engagement with Native Americans or with other imperial powers, focusing its energies instead on diplomacy and trade with such groups in the early decades of its colonial existence. During the period known as The Long Peace, extending from the 1680s through the 1740s, Pennsylvania established friendly relations with local Indian tribes that enabled the colony to expand territorially and to prosper economically. The Quakers who founded the colony and dominated its politics deemed a militia not only immoral but also impractical to Pennsylvania’s fortunes. Virtually defenseless, frontier communities in Pennsylvania suffered an onslaught when the colony’s former long-time Indian allies and trade partners joined the French in their war against Britain, in what became the French and Indian War (1754-63). Desperate to protect the frontier, the Pennsylvania assembly passed a militia act in 1755. Though the act proved futile as a tool for military defense (it forbade militia service lasting longer than three days), the militia allowed frontier communities to organize for the first time, frontiersmen took an increasingly active role in maintaining and advancing their own social and political interests. The desire to defend themselves during the French and Indian War and subsequent Pontiac's Rebellion (1763-65) fashioned Pennsylvania's diverse frontier population into a coherent frontier culture. Frontiersmen deployed the organizational power of the colonial militia to defend their own interests against, first, the Pennsylvania assembly, and shortly after against the British on the eve of the American Revolution.

The Enlightenment era in the West is traditionally referred to as the “Age of Reason” and the cradle of liberalism, which has been perhaps the dominant political ideology in the West since the eighteenth century. Philosophers such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill are credited with developing liberalism and their theories continue to be studied in terms of liberty, the social contract theory, and empiricism. While liberalism is heralded as a societal advancement in the field of philosophy, some thinkers’ actions were not consistent with their written principles. This essay investigates how John Locke was involved in the creation and perpetuation of slavery in North America, but later crafted and endorsed more liberal ideologies in his writings. This dual nature of Locke has a prominent place in academia and scholarly research. Many try to address the contradictory nature of Locke by looking to the location he had in mind when crafting his philosophies, specifically those concerning the state of nature, slavery, property rights, and empiricism. While some concepts, like slavery, seem to find him contemplating only English citizens, Locke’s reference to Indigenous Americans in his philosophical works supports the argument that the philosopher’s ideology was not necessarily written exclusively for English application. By analyzing Locke’s philosophy and his economic involvement in the Carolina colony through a postcolonial theoretical framework, this essay aims to understand the Eurocentrism of Locke and how his philosophy was applied differently across borders. Using postcolonial theory, this thesis concludes Locke was a colonialist and Western author who portrayed non-European cultures, practices, and experiences for European consumption and application.

The thesis reviews the historiography of American Populism in the late 19th century, through an evaluation of Richard Hofstadter’s thesis presented in The Age of Reform and The Paranoid Style in American Politics. Though Hofstadter related the Populist movement to proto-fascism, racism, paranoia, and jingoism, many historians before and after the publication of The Age of Reform have objected and presented a more positive view of Populism. By examining the lives and careers of three of Hofstadter’s primary examples of Populists—Mary Lease, Ignatius Donnelly, and Thomas E. Watson—the author proves that Hofstadter’s own evidence does not support his thesis. Though Hofstadter is certainly correct about some aspects of the Populist movement, including their tendency to engage in conspiracy, his claim that Populism is heavily characterized by racism is not borne out by the facts. The Populists studied are each unique individuals, with their own eccentricities and deviances from the larger Populist movement, and each must be considered within the context of their own lives and their own time. In the case of Tom Watson, for instance, Hofstadter’s quotes date to a point in Watson’s life where his beliefs could no longer be considered representative of the Populist movement. Major parts of Hofstadter’s evidence—including Mary Lease’s The Problem of Civilization Solved—were not influential or widely read within the Populist movement. The paper attempts to sort out what parts of Hofstadter’s evidence are valid, what parts are divorced from their proper context, and which parts are contrary to his actual thesis, through the format of three biographical chapters.

The British Empire began in the early seventeenth century and continued into the twentieth century. There have been many different answers to the question of what caused imperialism. One solution, proposed most famously by Vladimir Lenin, was that imperialism was a stage of capitalism, and as such developed from it. In this theory monopoly and finance play essential roles in controlling imperialism and are part of the developmental stages of capitalism which led to imperialism. Lenin’s work drew upon that of British economist John A. Hobson, who argued that sectional capitalist interests and under-consumption were what caused imperialism. These theories focus on new imperialism as an abrupt shift in the nature of imperialism. The goal of this thesis is to evaluate the accuracy of this theory of imperialism based on evidence from the British Empire. This thesis presents the details of Lenin’s and Hobson’s arguments to gain an understanding of the foundational ideas of the theory of imperialism as a stage of capitalism. Case studies of areas of the British Empire were done to find if there was evidence that expansion was directed by finance capital and if both political and social forces were controlled by economics in forwarding imperialism. From the data gathered, it was concluded that imperialism was not solely a consequence of capitalism, and imperialism was not a stage of capitalism.

This paper is composed of six micro-biographies of inspiring female figures from history: Ziniada Portnova, Nancy Wake, Katherine Johnson, Sunitha Krishnan, Huda Shaarawi, and Fe del Mundo. Traditionally, historians have failed to portray the value of ordinary people who have accomplished extraordinary things. In attempting to change this, the purpose of this project is to educate the public on the role that one person can play in the course of historical events and inspire others to follow the example of these women. Irrespective of geographic location, time period, or social position, each of these women have individually overcame the prevailing sentiment that their voices did not matter and maintained a desire to make a difference in their worlds in defense of their convictions. They made selfless sacrifices of action in order to advance their causes when the role of women was often overlooked. Despite the existing social boundaries and barriers, their confidence in themselves and the faith that they maintained in their convictions allowed them to successfully make a difference. The biographies will highlight the individual power of women who exercised their historical efficacy in the face of adversity. Beyond this written thesis, I am practicing public history by presenting these women at my defense as live women in costume. Similar to a museum exhibit, this use of visuals will further emphasize the reality of their lives, existence, and accomplishments. In narrating and presenting their stories, I hope to do two things. First, to give these women proper recognition for their courage, achievements, and strength. Second, to encourage you, the reader and audience, to believe in your power as an individual and to exercise your historical efficacy.

The Norman invasion and conquest of England in 1066, led by Duke William "the Conqueror," is well-known in British history; less well-known is the fact that the conquest caused a group of Norman Jews to immigrate to England. These immigrants were the first significant population of Jews to ever reside in England, and by about 1100, distinct communities of Jews had established themselves in several cities throughout the country. However, Jewish life in England came to an abrupt end less than two-hundred and thirty years after its beginning when King Edward I expelled the entire Jewish population from England in 1290. The edict of expulsion was approved by the English parliament on June 18, 1290, and there are no surviving records of what happened in that meeting or why Edward decided to banish the Jews. Accordingly, there are a host of questions that need answering if one is to propose a explanation. For example, what could compel Edward I, who struggled financially and was deeply in debt for the duration of his reign, to expel the people who had been the crown's greatest asset for two centuries? Why did the king break the charter which specifically placed the Jews under the monarchy's protection? Why was the aristocracy so intent on getting rid of the Jews who, on several occasions, kept the baronies financially afloat through generous loans? My goal in writing this thesis is threefold: first, to provide a concise but clear account of this extraordinarily specific section of history; second, to present the information in such a way that those who read it might be convinced that the Expulsion was, in fact, primarily motivated by financial factors; and third, to identify several structural and institutional factors which were critical to the Jews' experiences in medieval England.

ABSTRACT The origins of School Choice in the United States can be predominantly attributed to Milton Friedman's 1955 essay, "The Role of Government in Education." Since that time, the idea of leveling the educational playing field with a free market approach has been championed by conservatives and abhorred by liberals. Currently, there is overwhelming evidence to support the fact that public schools are failing today's youth and are not providing them with the tools to succeed post-high school graduation. Many policymakers have attempted to improve the education system by increasing the options available to parents. Today, that choice comes in the form of charter schools, Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), Vouchers, and Tax-Credit Scholarships (STOs). Each of these mechanisms seeks to empower families to make the best decision for their child, yet each comes with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Fraud and abuse plague every system and School Choice is not immune to such problems. However, the root concept at the core of school choice - that every child should have to opportunity to attend any school of their choosing, whether public, private, or charter - is fundamentally positive for society. The concept of School Choice is a noble and intelligent solution to the complex task of educating millions of youth across the United States. However, the process must be properly executed, through ESAs and Vouchers, to truly promote access and opportunity for all. Specifically, in Arizona, tax credit programs should be phased out in lieu of more efficient programs readily available. If this is not achieved, then School Choice becomes just another piece in an already dysfunctional puzzle.