Hello. I have an APUSH question:

Question

Could the American people have won their independence without George Washington and the small, professional Continental Army? Why have the myths of the militiamen and the part-time citizen-soldiers (Minute men) loomed almost larger in American memories of the Revolutionary War than memories of Washington's trained professional military? (7-10 sentences)

Answer 1

It's been a while since I studied the American Revolution, but a few key things come immediately to mind:

1. The first major battles of the Revolution, at Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill, were fought by the minutemen and state militias, not by the professional army; in fact, the professional army wasn't even fully formed yet.
2. Washington's professional army was most significant in that it was a large force based in the middle of the colonies that the British had to account for; because of this, the British had to keep a sizable force in New York City - the largest port city that had a sizable Loyalist population - in order to simply hold it. This had the effect of keeping the British from moving their larger and better-trained armies throughout the colonies at will, and allowed the guerrilla tactics of the militias to actually have an effect. In fact, with the exception of the Battle of Trenton and the Battle of Yorktown, Washington spent more time losing than winning; it was as a strategic presence where his army was most significant.
3. At the end of the day, the stories of the militias and minutemen are simply much more interesting than the tale of a professional army. People like the stories of the regular citizen standing up to an oppressive regime, which is what the stories of the militias are. The professional army was just yet another European-style professional army - not as well-equipped or well-trained as the British or French armies, but professional nonetheless.