20세기 초 미 육군 개혁과정 -개혁 정체 및 후퇴기(1904~1909)’를 중심으로-
UnitedStatesArmyReform intheearly20thCentury: StalemateandRegressionPeriod(1904-1909)
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
United States had had unique tradition of supporting local volunteer militia and avoiding large scale standing army.‘The Anti-Military Tradition’had prevailed since colonial time till the early 20th century. After experiencing the record increase in economic power and population, United States had changed in large scale in all aspects, and it finally turned from ‘the isolation of the agricultural republic’ to become‘ an empire true to the name’ especially after the advent of Mckinley administration and Spanish American War. United States Army Reform became possible when the new political groups who recognized the new status of their country cooperated with the reform minded officer corps having been raised after the Civil War. Although the reform between 1899 and 1903 had accomplished a set of institutional changes which had been impossible before for almost 100years, it was the results of a series of heavy compromises with opposing groups, so it had many limits and problems influencing the following implementation period.The period from 1904 to 1909 was recorded as a period of‘stalemate and regression’. First of all the reform had itsown vulnerabilityandlimitation resulting from much compromises.Second,the reform group was not fully formed enough to support the implementation of the reform. Finally and most importantly, the opposition against the reform was consistently high because the long tradition still persisted. Under these circumstances, reform was stagnantand regressed in all areas including there gulararmy and general staffr eform, and the national guard reform. Consequently, the stalemate and regression period of US Army Reform in the early 20th century shows well the difficulties of implementation of reform especially when the strong tradition against reform exists in one society.
Abstract
United States had had unique tradition of supporting local volunteer militia and avoiding large scale standing army.‘The Anti-Military Tradition’had prevailed since colonial time till the early 20th century. After experiencing the record increase in economic power and population, United States had changed in large scale in all aspects, and it finally turned from ‘the isolation of the agricultural republic’ to become‘ an empire true to the name’ especially after the advent of Mckinley administration and Spanish American War. United States Army Reform became possible when the new political groups who recognized the new status of their country cooperated with the reform minded officer corps having been raised after the Civil War. Although the reform between 1899 and 1903 had accomplished a set of institutional changes which had been impossible before for almost 100years, it was the results of a series of heavy compromises with opposing groups, so it had many limits and problems influencing the following implementation period.The period from 1904 to 1909 was recorded as a period of‘stalemate and regression’. First of all the reform had itsown vulnerabilityandlimitation resulting from much compromises.Second,the reform group was not fully formed enough to support the implementation of the reform. Finally and most importantly, the opposition against the reform was consistently high because the long tradition still persisted. Under these circumstances, reform was stagnantand regressed in all areas including there gulararmy and general staffr eform, and the national guard reform. Consequently, the stalemate and regression period of US Army Reform in the early 20th century shows well the difficulties of implementation of reform especially when the strong tradition against reform exists in one society.
참고문헌 (30)
- 설인효, "20세기 이전 미국의 군사 전통: 반(反) 군사 전통의 형성과 전개", 미국학, 35(1), pp.149~189 (2012), 미국학연구소[DOI]
- 설인효, "20세기 초 미 육군 개혁과정 : 반 군사 전통의 극복과 수정", 박사, 외교학과, pp.2012
- Ronald J. Barr, "Neo~Hamiltonian Republican And Military Reform in the Progressive Era: 1898~1912", 박사, pp.1912
- Samuel P. Huntington, "The Soldier and the State: the Theory and Politics of Civil~Military Relations" (1985), Harvard Univ. Press
- 설인효, "20세기 초 미 육군 개혁과정: 개혁의 시작, 루트 개혁기(1899-1903)를 중심으로", 미국학 논집, 44(3), pp.33~76 (2012), 한국아메리카학회
- Marc B. Powe, "A Great Debate: The American General Staff(1903~16)", Military Review, 55(4), pp.78~ (1903)
- Center of Military History United States Army, "American Military History", pp.370~ (2005), United States Army
- 국무총리 비상기획위원회, "미 육군 군사동원의 역사", pp.222~ (1984), CMH
- Stephen Skowronek, "Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877~1920", pp.221~ (1982), Cambridge University Press
- William Lassiter, "Memoirs, In Box IX: 2. Lassiter Papers", United States Military Academy Library
- Jason Patrick Clark, "The Many Faces of Reform: Military Progressivism in the U.S. Army, 1866~1916", 박사, pp.2009
- Ronald Glenn Machoian, "Between the Old and the New: William H. Carter and the American Army", 박사, pp.2002
- Richard L. Watson, "The Development of National Power: The United States 1900~1919", pp.69~ (1976), Houghton Mifflin Co
- Annual Report of War Department Year Ended June 30, 1905, Report of Secretary of War, , GPO, 19~29 (1905)
- Donald D. Anderson, "William Howard Taft : A Conservative’s Conception of the Presidency", pp.142~143 (1973), Cornell University Press
- "Annual Report of War Department, 1903, Vol. I, Report of Secretary of War, Appendix A. an act to increase the efficiency of the Army, section 4", 60~ (1903)
- "Annual Report of War Department for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1903", GPO, ~ (1903)
- William Gardner Bell, "Young: Comanding Generals and Chief of Staff 1775~2005", Center of Military History United States Army
- "The General Staff", Army and Navy Journal, 40 (1903)
- "Lieutenant General Young Leaves for Newport", Army and Navy Journal, 41, pp.133~ (1903)
- "Center of Military History United States Army", 223~ (1984)
- William Felix Atwater, "United States Army and Navy Development of Joint Landing Operation, 1898~1942", 박사, pp.1903
- Michael E. Deutrich, "Struggle for Supremacy: The Career of General Fred C. Ainsworth", pp.23~36 (1962), Public Affairs Press
- Otto L. Nelson, "National Security and the General Staff", pp.80~83 (1947), Infantry Journal Press
- James E. Hewes Jr., "From Root to McNamara: Army Organization and Administration 1900~1965", pp.13~ (1975), Center for Military History
- Palo Enrico Coletta, "The Presidency of William Howard Taft", pp.201~202 (1973), University of Kansas Press
- Jerry Cooper, "The Rise of the National Guard: The Evolution of the American Militia 1865~1920" (1997), University of Nebraska Press
- Louis Cantor, "The Creation of the Modern National Guard: The Dick Militia Act of 1903", 박사, pp.1963
- "Act of May 2, 1903, U.S., Statutes at Large, XXXII, Part 1, 927", Part 1, ~ (1903)
- "Act of May 27, 1908, U.S., Statutes at Larges, XXXV, 399", ~ (1908)