Custer's "Last Stand" — Trevilian Station, 1864

166CIVIL WAR history tional movement toward consolidation and integration required further departures in managerial strategy. Baughman argues that the Mallorys fell short of what an abstract model of calculated, "rational" profit-maximizing would have dictated. Or, cast in other terms, they rose above it. The were dedicated to perpetuation of the family enterprise and its style. They pursued a business strategy that concentrated on American-flag operation, and they adhered to norms that were given a higher priority than "any classic model of American economic man" would dictate (p. 346). In short, the Mallorys sustained an autonomy of thought and behavior that reflected their peculiar definitions, self-styled, of "utility, propriety, progress, and success." Whether or not Baughman's interpretation on this score—difficult at best to verify—holds up, the analytic scheme dictated by these concerns does serve well to integrate a vast body of data. And the result is a book that greatly enriches our understanding of American business and economic change in the nineteenth century. Harry N. Scheiber University of California, San Diego A History of Missouri, Volume III, 1860 to 1875. By William E. Parrish. (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1973. Pp. vii, 332. $9.50.) A History of Missouri, 1860 to 1875, the third volume of the Missouri Sesquicentennial History, furnishes a clear account of Missouri politics during the period indicated in the subtitle. Also, in chapters separated from the political narrative, the author treats "Life in Wartime Missouri ," "Urban Growth and Economic Development," and "Cultural Life in Postwar Missouri." This book reflects the interpretations of Missouri politics during the Civil War and Reconstruction periods presented earlier by the same author in his two well-received monographs, Turbulent Partnership: Missouri and the Union (1963) and Missouri Under Radical Rule (1965). For the early war years the heroes are the non-Republican Unionists, the "responsible" men who accepted the leadership of Hamilton Rowan Gamble. Though opposed to secession, the group also opposed any changes in the status of black people resident within Missouri's borders. From 1865 to 1870 was the period of Radical Republican hegemony, and for those years Parrish clearly admires the wisdom of the conservative opponents of Radicalism. He views the essential issue of the postwar years as constitutionalism rather than the status of blacks. Though Parrish certainly acknowledges and approves a strain of healthful progressivism within Radicalism, he nevertheless sees the Liberal Republican-Democratic victory of 1870 as Missouri's deliverance from vindictive extremism. In keeping with the Sesquicentennial History format, this book is without documentation. Scholars, therefore, may find Parrish's afore- BOOK REVIEWS167 mentioned monographs more suited to their purposes. On the other hand, the "Essay on Sources" in the present volume is probably the best guide available to secondary as well as primary materials relating to Missouri history in the Civil War period. Further, this book has the value of treating Civil War and Reconstruction politics together. In the process it reveals important relationships that are at least less apparent in the more restricted studies. In particular, the unified treatment underscores that secession in 1860, emancipation in 1864-1865, and suffrage in 1868 were three separate issues , each of which effected a realignment of political forces. Parrish, then, has given us a useful book, subject only to the complaint that Parrish himself had already told much of the same story. That reservation is offset, however, by the great value of the bibliographical essay and the merit of organizing Civil War and Reconstruction political history in a continuous narrative. John V. Mertng University of Arizona Mr. Polk's War: American Opposition and Dissent, 1846-1848. By John H. Schroeder. (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1973. Pp. xvi, 184. $12.50. ) John H. Schroeder has attempted to pull together the political and nonpolitical opponents of the Mexican War. Focusing on the tactics of the antiwar factions, he organizes the strategies of the políticos (predominately conservative Whigs and Calhoun Democrats in the Congress ) chronologically and those of the ideologues ( pacifists, abolitionists , and "conscience" Whigs) topically. The two groups were never able to agree on a common plan, and Schroeder concludes that the antiwar movement was unable to affect "the war...

This essay presents a brief analysis of three popular Spanish films released between 2001 and 2012 that are set in the immediate post Civil War period and first decades of the Franco dictatorship. Specifically, it considers three films which aim to reconstruct and represent the experience of the men, women, and children who fought Francoism or who endured repression after the end of the Spanish Civil War: Silencio roto (Armendáriz 2001), El laberinto del fauno (Del Toro 2004), and 30 años de oscuridad (Martín 2012). This essay explores the way in which tropes of politics, history, resistance, and repression are represented in each film, and how filmmakers using popular cinematic forms have appropriated the Spanish Civil War and Franco period settings to comment on contemporary political and social issues in Spain. Most of the recent Spanish cinematic productions (fictional and documentary) that depict the Spanish Civil War and Franco period have focused on the moral vindication of the vanquished. The three films considered here aim to reconstruct the particular experience or memories of the Spanish maquis and topos, and the civilians who supported them in their struggles. Each of the films discussed has sought to play a role in the recasting of collective identity in Spain, and affords important insights into the social processes and experiences of the time in which they were created. In a world where the visual immediacy of cinematic images increasingly works to displace traditional historiography, these representations have become ever more important and merit discussion. This essay takes into account that these cinematic representations are subjective and mediated depictions of events, participants, and circumstances of the Civil War and Franco period, and suggests pedagogical approaches to discussing each film in order to enable students (and other viewers) to grasp how to distinguish between history and the historicizing effect of its representations.

With the conclusion of the Mexican War in 1848, the United States seemed poised to fulfill the manifest destiny that was on the lips of journalists and politicians. Yet, even before the war was over, tensions over the issue of slavery erupted. Slavery symbolized the social, cultural, constitutional, and economic differences that were dividing the North and South. Through four years of bloody civil war and the loss of over 600,000 lives, the American republic decided the fate of slavery, asserted the supremacy of the federal government over state authority, and began to grapple with the difficult issues of reconstruction. This work provides substantial biographical entries of 20 individuals who shaped and defined the debates during the Civil War period. Political and military figures, such as Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee, writers such as Harriet Beecher Stowe, and abolitionist reformers, such as Frederick Douglass and George Fitzhugh, are included. With the conclusion of the Mexican War in 1848, the United States seemed poised to fulfill the manifest destiny that was on the lips of journalists and politicians. Yet, even before the war was over, tensions over the issue of slavery erupted. Slavery symbolized the social, cultural, constitutional, and economic differences that were dividing the North and South. Through four years of bloody civil war and the loss of over 600,000 lives, the American republic decided the fate of slavery, asserted the supremacy of the federal government over state authority, and began to grapple with the difficult issues of reconstruction. This work provides substantial biographical entries of 20 individuals who shaped and defined the debates during the Civil War period. Political and military figures, such as Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee, writers such as Harriet Beecher Stowe, and abolitionist reformers, such as Frederick Douglass and George Fitzhugh, are included. Each biography provides a concise account of the subject's life, followed by an analysis of the figure's role and contribution to the central issues of the day, and concludes with a bibliography of secondary and primary sources available to students. An appendix of over 180 additional biographies highlights the lives of others who played a role in the debates of the Civil War.

74CIVIL WAR HISTORY Koistinen divides his book into two parts. Part I discusses what he terms the "pre-industrial phase" of warfare. The American Revolution is the focus of this section. For Koistinen, the mobilization for the American Revolution was the most complex in American history because "the process of warfare created the nation" (? i). The Mexican War, and especially the American Civil War, represent the transitional phase between the preindustrial and industrial stages ofwar mobilization. Although the title indicates that the volume begins with the colonial era, the book, in fact, starts with the Revolution. But the main focus is on the Civil War period. Indeed, the author devotes six of his ten chapters to the mobilization efforts, both military and civilian, ofthe Union and the Confederacy. Koistinen's argument is not particularly new or revisionist. Rather, he has synthesized an enormous amount of literature on war mobilization. For example, his coverage of Confederate mobilization echoes the work of Richard Goff, Robert C. Black III, and Douglas Ball. Although he states in his notes that he utilized primary sources extensively, the citations are composed overwhelmingly of secondary literature. Still, those notes are invaluable, for they approximate a bibliographic essay (in the absence of a comprehensive bibliography). Koistinen states that his research interests he in the twentieth century and that he views nineteenth-century warfare and its political economy from a twentiethcentury perspective. That bias is reflected in his treatment of the Civil War years. Indeed, the book's emphasis on the roots oftotal war in the Civil War period allows Koistinen to lay the groundwork for his second volume. Beating Plowshares Into Swords does not conclude with any startling revelations or path-breaking interpretations. Nonetheless, it provides the scholar and student with a comprehensive synthesis of some of the best monographs on war, mobilization, and the evolution of the American political economy. Mary A. DeCredico United States Naval Academy Parties, Politics, and the Sectional Conflict in Tennessee. 1832-1861. By Jonathan M.Atkins. (Knoxville: University ofTennessee Press, 1997. Pp. xviii, 371. $38.00.) The republican synthesis has come at last to Tennessee. Jonathan M. Atkins's aim is to reshape our understanding ofantebellum politics in theVolunteer State by drawing on the insights of modern political historians who have traced the long-lasting influence of the Founding Fathers' ideology. He has succeeded admirably. Atkins rejects the notion, put forth by Richard P. McCormick and others, that the Whig and Democratic parties were essentially vote-getting machines devoid of ideological substance. In Tennessee at least, says Atkins, the parties BOOK REVIEWS75 were highly ideological. They shared a republican worldview that depicted America's cherished liberties as perpetually threatened by corrupt, self-seeking interests. Where the two parties differed was in their response to the continuing crisis of freedom: Whigs believed that economic development and an activist government would safeguard liberty, while Democrats feared that too much of either would destroy it. This basically chronological study thoroughly analyzes the political maneuvering and propagandizing that marked Tennessee's first party system from its birth in the late 1830s to its demise after the i860 election. (Scholars will still want to consult Paul H. Bergeron's Antebellum Politics in Tennessee, however, especially for detailed analysis of election returns.) Atkins challenges the assertion of William J. Cooper, Jr., that at the heart of antebellum Southern politics was the defense of slavery. In Atkins's view, the defense of slavery was but one element ofthe republican agenda. Whig and Democratic politicians got elected not simply by assuring the voters of their fidelity to slavery but by promising that their party's measures would better protect the citizens' freedoms, including the freedom to own slaves. Until 1861 the overwhelming majority of Tennessee voters of both parties rejected Southern-rights extremism and agreed that slavery and liberty would be safe only in an undivided Union. Atkins offers a persuasive explanation for the state's consistently conservative response to the sectional conflicts that drove many other Southern states toward fire-eating radicalism and secession. Likewise , he makes clear how and why the state abruptly changed course with the outbreak of war. Most Tennessee citizens immediately aligned themselves with the...

The Conflict between the Chief Justice and the Chief Executive: Ex parte Merryman ARTHUR T. DOWNEY Rarely does the clash ofideas on the scope ofgovernmental authority get reduced to a direct conflict between leaders ofthe branches ofgovernment. However, early in the Civil War period, the Chief Executive and the ChiefJustice confronted each other in a direct fashion. The stakes were high, because the issues related to the conflict between national security and personal liberty. The Arrest of John Merryman Late on Saturday, May 25, 1861, a petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus was presented to Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney at his home in Washington by Maryland attorneys George M. Gill and George H. Williams. They explained that they were counsel for John Merryman, and that they had just sworn to the petition in front of the U.S. Commissioner in Balti­ more. Gill and Williams further explained that at two o’clock that same morning, Merryman had been abducted from his bed in his home outside Cockeysville, north of Baltimore, by a detachment of soldiers led by a Lieutenant Abel, stationed at Relay House on the Northern Central Railroad. Merryman had been taken by train to Baltimore and then by hack to Fort McHenrywhere, by nine o’clockthatmorning, he had been locked up. The lawyers explained that they had vis­ ited Merryman at the Fort. The prisoner re­ ported to them that he had been informed that he had been arrested on an order from “one General Keim, ofPennsylvania,” whom he did not know. It was alleged that Merryman was the captain of some militia company of Balti­ more County, but Merryman said he had never heard ofthat company. Finally, the person now detaining Merryman “in close custody” was Brevet Brigadier General George Cadwalader. Merryman had signed his petition in front of his lawyers during their interview at Fort McHenry. All accesstothe prisonerwas denied except for his counsel and his brother-in-law. EX PARTE MERRYMAN 263 George Gill was one of two counsels for John Merryman , the Maryland citizen imprisoned without benefit of habeas corpus in 1861. The lawyers had come to Taney for re­ lief because at that time Supreme Court Jus­ tices also sat as federal circuit court judges, and Taney’s assigned fourth circuit included Maryland. That was fortuitous, since Taney had deep Maryland roots. It was no small irony that Fort McHenry, in which Merryman was imprisoned, had been the setting during the War of 1812 for the Star-Spangled Ban­ ner, based on a poem written by Taney’s late brother-in-law, Francis Scott Key, who had been a prominent Washington lawyer.1 Merryman ’s lawyers assumed that Taney would or­ der that Merryman be brought before him in Washington. John Merryman, age 37, was from a dis­ tinguished Maryland family that had come to Maryland before 1650. He lived on the 560-acre estate called “Hayfields” near Cock­ eysville north of Baltimore. It was a cattle farm that raised timothy hay—hence the name “Hayfields.”2 Merryman was long active in the Maryland militia, having been a third lieu­ tenant ofthe Baltimore County troops in 1847, and by early 1861 he was a first lieutenant of the Baltimore County Horse Guards. Tall and handsome, Merryman was a prominent citizen and president of the Maryland State Agricul­ tural Society. On Sunday, May 26, the day after Mer­ ryman’s lawyers met with Taney in Washing­ ton, the ChiefJustice went to Baltimore, where he could deal more conveniently with the Merryman petition forthe writ, since all thepo­ tential parties were there.3 In particular, Taney recognized that it would be awkward to direct General Cadwalader to leave Fort McHenry and come to Washington—beyond the lim­ its of his military command. One of Merryman ’s lawyers, Williams, presented Taney with a sworn statement explaining that he had gone to Fort McHenry earlier that Sunday and obtained an interview with General Cad­ walader. Williams sought permission to see and copy the papers under which the general was detaining Merryman. Cadwalader replied that he would “neither permit the deponent [Williams], though officially requesting and demanding, as such counsel, to read the said papers, nor to...

<i>Christianity and War in Medieval East Central Europe and Scandinavia</i>

Nonprofit Management and LeadershipVolume 6, Issue 1 p. 103-111 Research Report The blue river of truth: Literature and philanthropy Robert H. Bremner, Robert H. Bremner Robert H. Bremner is professor emeritus of history at the Ohio State University in Columbus. Among his books are American Philanthropy; The Public Good: Philanthropy and Welfare in the Civil War Period; The Discovery of Poverty in the United States, and Giving: Charity and Philanthropy in History.Search for more papers by this author Robert H. Bremner, Robert H. Bremner Robert H. Bremner is professor emeritus of history at the Ohio State University in Columbus. Among his books are American Philanthropy; The Public Good: Philanthropy and Welfare in the Civil War Period; The Discovery of Poverty in the United States, and Giving: Charity and Philanthropy in History.Search for more papers by this author First published: Autumn (Fall) 1995 https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.4130060110 AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume6, Issue1Autumn (Fall) 1995Pages 103-111 RelatedInformation

The years 1603 and 1660 mark political, not literary events. 1603 saw the death of Elizabeth I, the last Tudor monarch, and the accession of James I, the first of the Stuarts on the English throne. In 1660 his grandson Charles II was “restored” to that throne after a period of civil war and more than a decade of government without a king. Why imagine that the years between 1603 and 1660 comprise a literary period? The conviction that the English civil war and its aftermath, in the middle of the seventeenth century, constitutes something of a watershed in literary history emerged almost immediately: already in the late 1660s John Dryden was calling Shakespeare, Fletcher, and Jonson playwrights “of the last age.” 1603, when many major writers were in mid-career, is a less vivid demarcation. This introduction discusses the rationales for these period boundaries, provides a short orientation to the tumultuous history of early seventeenth century England, and discusses some of the problems and opportunities of writing a general literary history of these decades.

This article includes literature (principally fiction, but also poetry, spoken drama, opera, and popular performances), cultural policy and debate, and the history of the Communist Party’s relations with cultural intellectuals for the years 1942–1976. The starting point is Communist Party chairman Mao Zedong’s “Talks at the Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art,” delivered in May 1942, when China was politically divided and at war with Japan, and the period ends with Mao’s death in September 1976, an event closely followed by the arrest of his widow and her closest associates in a coup the following month. Mao’s “Talks” set the tone for the entire period, demanding the subordination of the arts to the Party’s mission as currently defined, and insisting that culture serve the Party’s constituency of “workers, peasants, and soldiers.” The “Talks,” variously interpreted, remained Party policy through the civil war period (1945–1949), and following the establishment of the People’s Republic in 1949. The new communist state established a Soviet Union–style cultural bureaucracy, and the most fortunate writers, performers, and artists were rewarded with official recognition and state sponsorship; also imported from the Soviet Union was the doctrine of socialist realism, with its requirement for loyalist and heroic works celebrating the nation’s prospective progress along the road to the glorious future of communism. Throughout the Mao era, the authorities sought to sponsor a new socialist Chinese culture, with varying degrees of tolerance for indigenous traditions and Western influence. The Communist Party and its leader believed in the power of the arts to support, and in the wrong hands to undermine, the cause of socialism; Mao intervened periodically in cultural matters, and many of the political campaigns that disrupted the period had cultural components. The effect of mercurial and often vindictive policy changes on writers and artists could be devastating: the Anti-Rightist campaign of the late 1950s and the Cultural Revolution of Mao’s last decade (1966–1976) saw the persecution of many of the nation’s leading cultural figures; virtually no writer or artist had an uninterrupted career. Chinese cultural histories customarily view the Yan’an and civil war period as distinct, and they divide the period from 1949 to 1976 into the seventeen years before 1966 and the Cultural Revolution decade that followed. Although this periodization overstates the discontinuity of cultural policy and artistic output, it will be observed for convenience here. A note on Romanization: English-language publications from China prior to 1979 use a modified, and inefficient, version of the now little-used Wade-Giles Romanization; after 1979, Chinese publishers converted to the now conventional pinyin Romanization. For Western scholarship or translations, the transition from Wade-Giles (in its more precise form) to pinyin took place at around the same time.

The Shan-Kan-Ning Border Region youth movement has a long and glorious historical tradition; beginning from the period of civil war [with the Kuomintang forces, 1928-1936], the Border Region Communist Youth Organization and the National Salvation Association of Youth have produced a large number of cadres and carried out a number of tasks beneficial to the revolution. But it cannot be denied that it has at the same time lacked a grasp of the specific characteristics of the Border Region, that through the formalistic use of the old work style and of methods derived from cities outside the Border Region it has lost touch with the people and walked a crooked path.

In Michael Ondaatje's novel Anil's Ghost, set in Sri Lanka during the late 1980s and concerned with torture and “disappearance” during that period of civil war, the title character Anil finds solac...

Les fentes labiopalatines à l’est de la République Démocratique du Congo. Aspects épidémiologiques

Essay| August 01 1924 Emigration From Soviet Russia General A. Loukomsky* General A. Loukomsky* *General Eoukomsky. one of Russia’s most brilliant military leaders under the old regime, was. at the outbreak of the World War, appointed Secretary of the War Office: I from the Summer of 1915 until April, 1910, lie was Assistat Minister of War. After active service at the front, he became Chief of Staff of the Ninth Army and later Director of Military Operations attached to Military Headquarters. After the first revolution he was Commander of the First Army Corps and Chie of Staff for General Brousilov and General Kornilov. Arrested after the latter’s “revolt” against the Provisional Government, he escaped in December, 1917, and fled to the Don, where during the period of civil war, he was Chief of Staff of the Volunteer Army and later under General Denikin War Minister. During General Wrangel’s anti-Bolshevist activities he served as the latter’s representative before the Interallied High Commission to Constantinople. Being himself an exile from Russia and in intimate touch with other exiles in almost every capital of Europe, General Loukomsky has had exceptional opportunity to study the whole question of Russian political emigration from a broad, historical angle. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Current History (1924) 20 (5): 787–791. https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.1924.20.5.787 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation General A. Loukomsky*; Emigration From Soviet Russia. Current History 1 August 1924; 20 (5): 787–791. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.1924.20.5.787 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentCurrent History Search This content is only available via PDF. © 1924 by The Regents of the University of California1924 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

This study provides the first assessment of decadal changes in mangrove extents in Sierra Leone. While significant advances have been made in mangrove mapping using remote sensing, no study has documented long-term changes in mangrove extents in Sierra Leone—one of the most vulnerable countries in West Africa. Such understanding is critical for devising regional management strategies that can support local livelihoods. We utilize multi-date Landsat data and cloud computational techniques to quantify spatiotemporal changes in land cover, with focus on mangrove ecosystems, for 1990–2016 along the coast of Sierra Leone. We specifically focus on four estuaries—Scarcies, Sierra Leone, Yawri Bay, and Sherbro. We relied on the k-means approach for an unsupervised classification, and validated the classified map from 2016 using ground truth data collected from Sentinel-2 and high-resolution images and during field research (accuracy: 95%). Our findings indicate that the Scarcies river estuary witnessed the greatest mangrove loss since 1990 (45%), while the Sierra Leone river estuary experienced mangrove gain over the last 26 years (22%). Overall, the Sierra Leone coast lost 25% of its mangroves between 1990 and 2016, with the lowest coverage in 2000, during the period of civil war (1991–2002). However, natural mangrove dynamics, as supported by field observations, indicate the potential for regeneration and sustainability under carefully constructed management strategies.

Alice Lakwena’s transformation from a healer into a Christian prophetess occurred during a period of civil war and unrest in Uganda. In 1986, she founded the Holy Spirit Mobile Forces (HSMF) in northern Uganda and waged war against the government of Yoweri Museveni. Above all, her power was based on the practice of possession by gendered spirits, a ritual that fostered a unique form of holy war. Though her forces were defeated, and she later died in a refugee camp in northern Kenya, her fame continued to grow after her death.