The Quill and Musket (v01n01) Complete

The Quill and Musket
VOLUME 1 – NUMBER 1 – DECEMBER 2010
Published by
THE QUILL AND MUSKET: AN ONLINE UNIVERSITY HISTORICAL
RESEARCH SOCIETY
quillandmusket@gmail.com
Contents
In This Issue
Articles
Who Were the Dannan? Cam Rea
Liberty, Enlightenment, and Classical Republican Virtues
in the Founding of America William R. Cox
The Penning of Gettysburg:
Historiographical Accounts from Different Perspectives James D. Barlow
The Leadership Foundations of George Washington Anthony Siciliano
Stonehenge‘s Fluid Past John W. Taylor
Reviews of Books and Articles
Ted Steinberg, The Unnatural History of Natural Disaster in America. By Julia K. Perry
Richard Marius and M. E. Page. A Short Guide to Writing About History. By John W. Taylor
Denys Hay, The Italian Renaissance in its Historical Background. By David G. Terrell
Communications
The Quill and Musket (Q&M) is published in June and December of each year. It is the official journal of The Quill and Musket:
An Online University Historical Research Society, whose online presence is located on Facebook at the following URL
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=114432541923834. Publications may be found at the Society‘s official archive,
currently located at http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2486217. Guidelines for preparing and submitting articles
to the Q&M, for possible publication, are available by email request, from quillandmusket@gmail.com. The Q&M disclaims all
responsibility for statements, of either fact or opinion, made by contributors.
© The Quill and Musket: An Online University Historical Research Society,

President: Tony Siciliano 2010, except where otherwise noted, Q&M content is licensed under a Creative
Vice President: David Brehm Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported
Secretary: Carole A Cudnik License. For permission to reprint under terms outside the license, contact the
Editor-in-Chief: David G. Terrell Editor-in-Chief at quillandmusket@gmail.com.
Faculty Advisor: Bill Speer
2
In This Issue
This represents the first stumbling efforts to publish some of the best historical writing by undergraduate
and graduate students at universities targeting the distance-learning community, beginning with the
American Public University System (APUS). The articles included in this inaugural, even prototypical,
issue focus on historical issues related to Western Civilization. This is perhaps unremarkable, given the
chief demographic of the contributors--attendance at an APUS university, whose focus is chiefly upon
"educating those who serve" in the areas of national security and public service.
I fervently hope that this first attempt will expose a larger audience to the high quality of research and
exposition occurring in the distance learning university and perhaps stimulate useful academic discussion.
Comments and questions are always welcome.
Where we are going,

Not where we have been,
Errors showing,
"Let us begin!"
Hi Ho Silver - AWAY!
Vanilla Fudge Symphony, by Carl DeAngelis

http://www.vanillafudge.com/symph.htm
Best complements,
David G Terrell
davidterrell80@hotmail.com
3
Articles
Who Were the Danaan?

CAM REA
The Danaan have been a mystery people for many historians. Speculated to have been
Greek seafarers in the late Bronze Age, they are also closely associated with the Sea Peoples
who ravaged Eastern Mediterranean during the same period. Other evidence suggests they
originated somewhere along the coast of the Levant. Whoever the Danaan were, they left a
legacy of ravaging the coasts of the Eastern Mediterranean. The warriors who sacked Homer‘s
Troy may even be a possibility to explain the origin of this mysterious people but so may the
Greek mythologies, and the Bible itself may unlock this people‘s mysterious identity. Let us look
to the Greek story about Danaus and Aegyptus.
According to the Greeks, the Danaan were a branch of what would become the Greek
people over time. The Danaan are mentioned in Greek mythology as a people who originally
dwelt next to the Nile River in Egypt. Their founder whom they are named after was a man by
the name of Danaus, a descendent of Io. Danaus had fifty daughters, and his brother Aegyptus
had fifty sons. Aegyptus wanted to marry off his fifty sons to the daughters of Danaus. Danaus
gathered his daughters and fled by ship from the marriage proposal offered by his brother, and
settled in a place called Argos where they found safety among the Argives. Aegyptus was furious
that Danaus had fled with his daughters. Therefore he gathered his fifty sons and followed suit,
and the Argives repulsed them. Eventually the daughters of Danaus would marry their cousins,
but how this happened is not known as the story does not say. However, Danaus gives his
daughters daggers at the wedding feast and instructs them to kill their husbands the night of the
wedding. The daughters agree to this very act, except one, whose name was Hypermnestra: she
was moved by pity and thus let her husband Lynceus live.1 She was the only daughter to marry
and have a child within her own family, thus by Greek law, which we will discuss shortly, their
child inherited not only the spoils of Ageyptus, but also the spoils of Danaus. What is striking
about this story is that it maybe three stories made into one, and of Hebrew origin. Let us first
begin with the names Danaus and Aegyptus.
The name Danaus, after which the Danaan tribes are named, bears a striking resemblance
to the Hebrew tribe of Dan and is most likely associated with that tribe due to name and phonetic
similarities.2 The name Aegyptus is of great interest. First, one must understand that the
Pharaohs of Egypt did not use the term Egypt: it was the Greeks who called them Egypt or in
1
Edith Hamilton, Mythology, (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1969), 416
2
Yair Davidiy, Lost Israelite Identity, (Shiloh-Hebron-Susia-Jerusalem: Russel-Davis Publishers, 1996),
131, 154
The Quill and Musket, December 2010

4
Greek ―Aigyptos.‖3 However, it seems that the name Aigyptos was used in reference to the Nile
country from which our story first takes place between Danaus and Aegyptus and not Egypt as
we know it as a whole, which opens another possibility that will be discussed shortly. In
addition, many of the near eastern kingdoms and small nations never used the name ―Aigyptos‖
when referring to Egypt. Instead, nations such as the Assyrians/Babylonians used the terms
―Mutsri,‖4 ―Musur,‖ and ―Misir‖5 when referring to Egypt, while the Hebrews referred to them
as ―Mitsrayim‖6 or ―Mizraim.‖7 However, the Mycenaean Linear B text mention the name
Egypt/Egyptian twice, the first name is Misirayo, while the second name mentioning
Egypt/Egyptian in the text is Aikupitiyo,8 two names considered by modern scholars to mean the
same thing. However, both names have vast differences, and yet no modern scholar can tell us
why Egypt is referred to by these two vastly different renderings of the name Egypt. The first
name mentioned in the Linear B text ―Misiryo‖ is very much similar and connected to the
Semitic variations of the name already mentioned. However, it is the second name Aikupitiyo
which is in dispute since it has no connection to Egypt. In addition, both names seem to be
personal names that point to an identity. If Misiryo means ―the Egyptian‖ then the name
Aikupitiyo is alien to the land of Egypt and does not indicate that this person is Egyptian. I have
another solution to this person‘s identity. Remember in the story of Danaus and Aegyptus, both
are said to be brothers, and both dwelt by the Nile; both could escape by sea as well as in the
case of Danaus fleeing with his fifty daughters and evidently so could Aegyptius when he
pursued Danaus. With that said, it seems plausible to suspect that both Danaus and Aegyptus
lived in the land of Goshen where the Israelites dwelt. Thus, Danaus represents the Danites, and
Aegyptus represents the Israelites as a whole including the tribe of Dan, for the name Aikupitiyo
could very well be a rendering of the name ―Jacob,‖ the father of the twelve tribes of Israel. For
further consideration that the name Aikupitiyo is a rendering of Jacob, one must take notice that
the name Jacob is ―Ya'aqov‖ in Hebrew. In Ancient Egypt a certain Hyksos ruler bears a very
similar name, and that name is ―Yakubher‖ also rendered as ―Yak-Baal‖, and ―Yakeb-Baal‖.9
Notice the similarities between the two names Aikupitiyo and Yakubher. Now compare that to
the name Jacob found in New Testament Greek in the book of Matthew 1:2, which is rendered as
3
Robin Hard, The Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology: Based on H.J. Rose's Handbook of Greek
Mythology, (London & New York: Rouledge, 2004), 233
4
40
5
Thomas Kelly Cheyne & John Sutherland Black, Encyclopaedia biblica : a critical dictionary of the
literary political and religious history, the archaeology, geography, and natural history of the Bible,
(London : Adam and Charles Black, 1899-1903), 3161-3162
6
40
7
King James, Bible, (Nashville: Thomas & Nelson Publishers, 1997), 7
8
Edwin M. Yamauchi, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 85, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1965), 415-
418
9
I. E. S. Edwards, The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 2, Part 1: The Middle East and the Aegean
Region, c.1800-1380 BC. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 59

5
―Iakob.‖10 Thus the plausibility that the name Aegyptus is a variation of the name Jacob found in
the Bible becomes clearer in our search of the Danaan identity. For one name is Mycenaean with
Semitic influence; the other is Egyptian with Semitic influence, and when we look to the New
Testament Greek, we find a link between the two names. Thus it is possible that both names are
related due to the Semitic influence that both the Mycenaean and Egyptian cultures inherited.
However, the question we must ask is, did the tribe of Dan have a falling out with Jacob? The
answer to that question is yes! Nevertheless, it must be understood before we go any further that
if we are to look at the story as two brothers the story is partially false and partially true. The
false part of the story is that Dan and Jacob were brothers; according to the Bible Jacob was
Dan‘s father. However, with that said, Dan and Jacob could be considered brothers. In other
words, the tribes of Israel were all brothers to one another including the tribe of Dan. This is
where the story of Danaus and Aegyptius are in relation to the Biblical account of Dan and
Jacob/Israel. However, we must ask ourselves what story in the Bible can be related to Danaus
and Aegyptius? For that answer, we must look to the book of Judges, focus on the famed ―song
of Deborah,‖ and work our way from there. The song of Deborah states, "Gilead abode beyond
Jordan: and why did Dan remain in ships?" Judges 5:17. Then answer to this verse is due to a
man named Sisera with whom the Israelites were at war found in the book of Judges 5:20.
However, Dan refused to fight and remained in his ships. In other words, Dan could care less for
the most part as to what was going on and the same can be said for a portion of the Manassites
living in Gilead according to the verse. This is where we get the story of Danaus fleeing with his
daughters from his brothers Aegyptius and his sons. As for why Dan fled, we must look to the
story of Hypermnestra and her husband Lynceus to find the answer. In this story, we will notice
a similar law between the Hebrews and Greeks and that their names Hypermnestra and Lynceus
are a metaphor for places connected to the Bible.
The story of how Hypermnestra allowed her husband to live maybe connected to Biblical
events that took place. According to Greek law, if a woman has no brothers, then the next of kin
is obliged to marry her so that land her father left her stays in the family. Aegyptus, according to
Greek legend, was the brother of Danaus; Aegyptus had fifty sons, Danaus had fifty daughters. If
Danaus refused then the inheritance would go to someone else not of the tribe.11 This Greek law
bares great resemblance to the Hebrew law, in which if a woman has no brothers to take over the
family‘s lands, then she has to marry someone of her kin in order to keep the land within the
family. Such was the case of Zelophehad and his five daughters found in the book of Numbers
(26:33, 27:3), and in the book of Joshua (17:3). These five daughters were not married when
Joshua presided over Israel and the land was being divided up among the chieftains. The men of
Israel were concerned over this that if these daughters did not marry, then the possibility of other
men taking them would divide up the inheritance. Like the Greek story, one will notice that not
10
King James, Bible, (Nashville: Thomas & Nelson Publishers, 1997), 561
11
Herbert Jennings Rose, A Handbook of Greek Mythology, (London:Routledge, 2005), 223

6
only did the daughters of Danaus marry their kin, so did the daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers
36:11).12
Now, besides the similarities in the law the Greeks and Hebrews seem to share due to the
stories, let us focus on the names Hypermnestra and Lynceus. The name Hypermnestra as you
know according to the story was the daughter of Danaus. However, her name may be in relation
to the name or place known as Gilead. The word ―hyper‖ in Greek means over, above, or
exceeding,13which is similar and may have originated from the Hebrew word Gilead. In Hebrew,
Gilead can mean, hill, mound, or rugged you could say.14 The word Gilead can also be
considered ―upper Manasseh‖ since the land the tribe of Manasseh was allotted extended far
north when one looks at a map of where the twelve tribes of Israel were located. One will notice
that part of the tribe of Manasseh dwelt on the east side of Jordan River where you will find the
land of Gilead if you look north.15 When you compare the two names‘ definitions, you see that
Hyper means over, as in over a river, as in the Jordan River, and above, as in hilly or mountains
region, like the region of Gilead which means hill, mound, or rugged. In addition, the name
Hyper is phonetically similar to the word Heber or Hebrew, for the ―y‖ can sound as an ―e‖ and
the ―p‖ can sound as a ―b‖ and thus interchangeable.16 However, even the word Heber has the
same meaning as Hyper. As mentioned earlier, ―hyper" means over in Greek, "heber" is the exact
same meaning such as ―country beyond‖ or ―pass over‖. Take for example the story of Abraham.
Abraham was called a Hebrew since he not only descended from Eber but also originated from
―over the Euphrates‖.17 Now the name Lynceus is also very interesting, for the name Lynceus in
Greek may be derived from lynx or leopard in association with a lion18, just as the Hebrew word
Laish, which was also a city of the tribe of Dan, is said to mean ―lion,‖19 ―for Dan is a lions
whelp,‖ Deuteronomy 33:22.20 It becomes possible that the story of Hypermnestra and Lynceus
is a story not about two people, but about how the tribe of Dan refused to join his brothers
Jacob/Israel in their fight against Sisera. In addition, it also shows how a partial part of Manasseh
living in Gilead, near the Danite city of Laish, refused to follow Jacob/Israel and thus allowed
the city of Laish to live or be as it may. This event may have served as the story or background
for the famed story of Hypermnestra and Lynceus. Hypermnestra and Lynceus were tribal
brothers and tribal allies, who shared the same interest in opposing Jacob/Israel against Sisera.
The Greeks may have at first viewed the alliance as a marriage, but through tribal relations to
12
King James, Bible, (Nashville: Thomas & Nelson Publishers, 1997)
13
William S. Haubrich, Medical meanings: a glossary of word origins, (Philadelphia: American College
Of Physicians, 2003) , 113
14
Anonymous, The Wesleyan Sunday-School Magazine [Afterw.] the Wesleyan Methodist Sunday School
Magazine, (London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 1873), 125
15
Yair Davidiy, The Tribes, (Jerusalem: Russell-Davis), 24
16
Anna Wilkes, Ireland: Ur of the Chaldees, (Charleston, SC: Bibliobazaar, 2009), 91
17
M. G. Easton, Illustrated Bible Dictionary, (Knoxville: Cosimo Classics, 2006), 319
18
Richmond Yancey Hathorn, Greek mythology, (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1977), 56
19
Ian Cairns, Word and presence: a commentary on the book of Deuteronomy, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992), 300
20

7
one another, which over time the story went from two tribes related through marriage as in terms
of having the same founding father, to just two people related. With that said, it should also be
noted that the story concerning Zelophehad and his daughters may have been used as a backdrop
in explaining the law when the Danites made it to Greece, and over time that story became
transformed into the story we have today. Whatever the case may be, it is plausible that the
events and stories that took place in Israel during the time of the judges could have been passed
to the Greeks through the tribe of Dan. Now, with that said, let us focus on the other part of the
story that many find horrendous, and that is the forty-nine daughters of Danaus murdering their
forty-nine husbands on the night of their wedding.
On the wedding night Danaus give instructions to his fifty daughters to murder their
husbands. As you already know and have already read, one daughter spared her husband‘s life.
However, the question that we need to address is, is there a connection to the other story found in
the Bible concerning the forty-nine daughters murdering their forty-nine husbands? According to
the book of Judges, during the same time that the tribe of Dan and a part of the tribe of Manasseh
turned their backs on their kin, there was a certain women named Jael. In the book of Judges
4:17-22, the woman named Jael is not a Hebrew but a Kenite. The Kenites were friends with
those of Sisera. As the story goes, Sisera fled from a lost battle until he reached an area were the
Kenites lived. It was there that she offered him a place to rest his head. Once asleep, Jael smote
him with a tent peg through his temple till it came out the other side and fixed into the ground.
What is fascinating about this story is that the act parallels that of the Greek myth. The only
difference between the two is that the Biblical story praises Jael for a job well done and is
showered with blessings, while the Greek story paints the women who murdered their husbands
at night as villains and castaways for such an act. What else becomes evident, and something that
has already been discussed, is that Dan refused to fight when Sisera arrived, but once Jael ended
Sisera‘s life the war ended, and the same goes for when the forty-nine daughters of Danaus
murdered their husbands when they were asleep, thus the war between the Danaus and Aegyptus
had been settled.21
In conclusion to the story of Danaus and Aegyptius, it seems fair to say that it may be
connected to the Biblical accounts mentioned. So let us back track briefly. Danaus=Dan,
Aegyptius=Jacob/Israel, Greek law and Hebrew law on marriage and land grants are equally the
same; Hypermnestra and Lynceus are a metaphor for the Hebrew people and the Danite city of
Laish which the Hebrew people allowed to live; and the women who murdered their husbands
are a metaphor for Jael and her actions. It is worth looking into further as there are more scrapes
and tidbits of information throughout the famed Greek story. However it will require further
investigation into the story, but what has been spoken should be considered and weighed, for
behind every myth is a general truth.
21

8
Cam Rea is an author, and currently a student at the American Military University, where he is pursuing a
BA in Military History.
Bibliography
Anonymous. The Wesleyan Sunday-School Magazine [Afterw.] the Wesleyan Methodist Sunday School
Magazine. London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 1873.
Cairns, Ian. Word and presence: a commentary on the book of Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992.
Cheyne, Thomas Kelly. Black, John Sutherland. Encyclopaedia biblica: a critical dictionary of the
literary political and religious history, the archaeology, geography, and natural history of the Bible.
London: Adam and Charles Black, 1899-1903.
Davidiy, Yair. Lost Israelite Identity: The Hebrew Ancestory of Celtic Races. Shiloh-Hebron-Susia-
Jerusalem: Russel-Davis Publishers, 1996.
—. The Tribes. Jerusalem: Russell-Davis, 2004.
Easton, M.G. Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Knoxville: Cosimo Classics, 2006.
Hamilton, Edith. Mythology. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1969.
Hard, Robin. he Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology: Based on H.J. Rose's Handbook of Greek
Mythology. London & New York: Routledge, 2004.
Hathom, Richmond Yancey. Greek Mythology. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1977.
Haubrich, William S. Medical meanings: a glossary of word origins. Philadelphia: American College Of
Physicians, 2003.
Rose, Herbert Jennings. A Handbook of Greek Mythology. London: Routledge, 2005.
Wilkes, Anna. Ireland: Ur of the Chaldees. Charleston, SC: Bibliobazaar, 2009.

9
Liberty, Enlightenment, and Classical Republican Virtues

in the Founding of America
WILLIAM R. COX
The United States of America has, arguably, impacted the world more than any other
nation or society in history. America has enjoyed political, cultural, military and economic
dominance since World War II, where, with the help of Britain and the other allies, America
rolled back the reach of tyranny to the benefit of all humanity. America later engaged and
ultimately defeated communism through the Cold War, again lifting liberty to supremacy over
despotic leadership. This brief history of American success and positive impact throughout world
history, invites a litany of questions that historians must endeavor to answer. Was the founding
of America truly a monumental event in the history of the world? Was something innately
special created in 1776 and then confirmed and codified in 1787? Was American success
determined by the fact that the founders were simply the best political minds the world has ever
produced? In short, why was the founding of America special?
Throughout America‘s short life, many historians have attempted to answer these
questions. Scholars put forth many different theories over the last 200 years, such as, George
Bancroft who in the nineteenth century offered the divine hand of providence and the deified
traits of the founders as the primary impetus for the founding.1 As America transformed itself
from an agrarian to industrial country, Bancroft‘s thesis and the founders‘ motives came under
assault from a group of historians who focused on the economic impact of the American
Revolution. Charles Beard offered his ideas through the lens of an economic interpretation of the
founding arguing that economics were the primary factors leading to the American Revolution
and the framing of the United States Constitution. Beard, in large measure, dismissed Bancroft‘s
and other early historians theories that were based in ideology, because, in his view the proper
method for interpreting history was through the realm of economics.2 Fredrick Jackson Turner, a
contemporary of Beard‘s, combined the idealism of individualism and liberty with the economics
of westward expansion, as a historian he viewed the history of America not only through the lens
of ideology or economics but he attempted to develop a history through a sort of compilation of
the two.3 More recently, Joseph Ellis focused his work on the founders themselves because ―men
make history‖ and the generation responsible for the founding knew they were making history. 4
He further argued that the success of the founding was based upon the founders‘ intellectual,
1
Ernst Breisach, Historiography Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, 3rd Edition (Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press, 2007) 255-261.
2
Ernst Breisach, Historiography, 334-337.
3
Fredrick Jackson Turner, "AHA Presidential Address: Social Forces in American History," American
Historical Association, http://www.historians.org/info/aha_history/fjturner.htm (accessed February 7,
2010).
4
Joseph Ellis, Founding Brothers The Revolutionary Generation (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2002)
4.

10
cultural, and social diversity; arguing that the founding represents what ―was, and still is a group
portrait.‖5
Bernard Bailyn and Gordon Wood provide the most comprehensive work focused on the
ideological underpinnings of the American founding. Bailyn posits that an ideology, which
began nearly a century earlier, provided the intellectual transformation that resulted in the
American Revolution. Wood furthers Bailyn‘s work by illustrating the importance of the
Enlightenment and classical republican virtues in the founding of America.6 This work continues
in the vein of Bailyn and Wood, exploring the ideological history of America‘s founding by
asking the question, ―Why was the founding of America special?‖ The answer, to this seemingly
complex question, is found in the three simple, yet, famous words We The People.
The founding of the United States of America was a synthesis of the evolving
Enlightenment ideology of personal liberty and classical republican virtues that culminated in the
political institution known as We The People. The synthesis of these elements can be best viewed
through the lens of the American colonial mindset of the Revolutionary period. Gaining insight
into the revolutionary ideology and mindset will be accomplished by: first examining the
ideology of personal liberty, its origins and evolution in time; secondly by considering the
importance of classical republican virtues to the founders during the Enlightenment; and finally
how the founders synthesized these ideas into a new pragmatic political reality that they codified
into the Constitution of The United States of America. The new political reality that had matured
through the years was so powerful that it would transform thirteen independent states from
oppressed subjects of King George to a united single nation sized republic that would obtain
political and economic hegemony of the North American continent in less than one hundred
years. The Declaration of Independence described the culmination of personal liberty as an
ideology.
The Continental congress set forth their grievances in the Declaration of Independence.
All men, have ―certain inalienable rights,‖ that governments get ―their powers from the consent
of the governed,‖ and that ―whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these
ends‖ it is the right of the people to ―abolish it and institute a new government.‖ 7 The Congress
further explained that, ―the history of the present king of Great Britain, is a history of repeated
injustices and usurpations in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these
states.‖ 8 King George and Parliament were viewed as tyrannical usurpers of liberty. The
Americans perceived only one choice, in 1776, war. The ideology displayed in the Declaration of
Independence was not simply the result of Thomas Jefferson‘s imagination or creativity. The
ideology evolved over many years prior to Jefferson‘s penning the famous text. In many ways,
5
Joseph Ellis, American Creation Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic (New York,
NY: Vintage Books, 2007) 16-17.
6
Gordon Wood, The Creation of the American Republic: 1776-1787 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of
North Carolina Press, 1998) v-xviii.
7
Thomas Jefferson, "The Declaration of Independence" (Philidelphia, PA: Continental Congress, July 4,
1776).
8
Ibid.

11
the ideals described in the Declaration by Jefferson and ingrained into the mindset of the
Americans originated with the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment.
The Age of the Enlightenment began with the Glorious Revolution, of 1688, in Britain
and continued to include the American Revolution and the European revolutions that would
follow. The philosophers of this age included Voltaire, Rousseau, Smith, Locke and many others.
The significance of this age to the ideological mindset of the Americans cannot be overstated.
Thomas Jefferson viewed the contributions of Bacon, Locke and Newton as immense and
immortalized the three in 1789 with portraiture for the library at Monticello.9 Jefferson was not
alone in his admiration of the Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment was the age of reason and progress, where men believed in
themselves and their intellectual abilities rather than superstition and tradition alone. Sir Francis
Bacon set the stage for future philosophers when he argued that man can only understand that
which ―he has observed in fact or in thought of the course of nature: beyond this he neither
knows anything nor can do anything.‖10 The Enlightenment held philosophically that everything
was subject to the reason and criticism of mans intellect. The dogma of religion and the despotic
traditions of statecraft were no longer exempt from individual intellectual critique.11 Through the
Enlightenment philosophers the individual, in many ways, came to be the ultimate authority, no
longer were men‘s minds subjugated to an idle aristocracy, the ritualistic established church nor
the despotic tyranny of a King. The Scottish philosopher Adam Smith attacked economic
arrangements based on anything other than an individual fulfilling his self interests by his own
means within a level playing field.12 Meanwhile, America‘s own Thomas Jefferson exemplified
the growing desire by men of reason to question dogma with his version of the Holy Bible where
he had removed all elements of the Gospels that seemed ―un-reasonable‖ to the intellect of
man.13 John Locke was arguably the first and certainly one of the most important philosophers of
the Enlightenment, particularly for the Americans.
By 1776, Americans were very familiar with the political philosophy of Locke, and
others, ―in pamphlet after pamphlet the American writers cited Locke on natural rights and on
the social and governmental contract.‖14 Locke argued that government was a contract amongst a
citizenry and that the people voluntarily submitted to authority in order to obtain ―public
protection of their natural rights.‖15 Locke posited that, ―to understand political power aright, and
9
Isaac Kramnick, ed., The Portable Enlightenment Reader, ed. Isaac Kramnick (New York: Penguin
Books, 1995) ix.
10
Francis Bacon, "Reason and Nature: The New Science," in The Portable Enlightenment Reader, ed.
Isaac Kramnick (New York: Penguin Books, 1995) 39.
11
Isaac Kramnick, ed., The Portable Enlightenment Reader, xi.
12
Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations," in The Portable Enlightenment Reader, ed. Isaac Kramnick
(New York: Penguin Books, 1995) 505-513.
13
David L. Holmes, The Faiths of the Founding Fathers (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006)
83.
14
Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press, 1992) 27.
15
Isaac Kramnick, ed., The Portable Enlightenment Reader. xvi.

12
derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state
of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see
fit . . . without depending upon the will of any other man.‖16
Eighteenth-century American society existed in many ways as the laboratory of
Enlightenment philosophy. America possessed no hereditary aristocracy or idle nobles, yet, an
elite of society had formed where, daily life closely resembled Adam Smith‘s economic ideology
based on meritorious self-interest. This elite could be called an American Enlightened
meritocracy, where being a gentleman was paramount, especially if you held ambitions of
political leadership. The founders, the American Enlightened elite, grew into the new liberal
standards for men of leadership, cultivating politeness, sociability, accumulation of knowledge,
and compassion. They expected the characteristics of disinterestedness and virtue to be second
nature their political class in America.17 These classical republican ideals and virtues were of
immense importance to the founding fathers; because, ―republics had to hold themselves together
from the bottom up, ultimately, from their citizens‘ willingness to take up arms to defend their
country and to sacrifice their private desires for the sake of the public good—from their
disinterestedness.‖18 The philosophers of the day, and the founders of America, reasoned that no
republic could survive were it not for the virtue of its citizenry.
The initial blows of the American Revolution occurred at Lexington; however, the
ideological battle began nearly a century earlier with the Glorious Revolution in Great Britain.
John Locke‘s natural rights argument and its emphasis of individual liberty provided the
philosophical justification for the 1688 Glorious Revolution of Britain and, subsequently, greatly
influenced the ideology leading to the American Revolution.19 The 1688 British war resulted in
the creation of Great Britain‘s parliamentary style government and the overthrow of King James
II of England. In large measure, the American Revolution was a continuation of the ideological
war started in 1688 in opposition to King James and the work of Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton,
and Washington was a continuation of what Locke started.20
The Glorious Revolution hoped to restrict the Crowns power by subjugating the King‘s
war making and taxing abilities to the advice the British Parliament. Bernard Bailyn, in his study
of colonial literature, observed that, ―few of them,‖ that is the colonists, ―accepted the Glorious
Revolution and the lax political pragmatism that had followed as the final solution to the political
problems of the time . . . and they refused to believe that the transfer of sovereignty from the
crown to Parliament provided a perfect guarantee that the individual would be protected from the
16
John Locke, "The Second Treatise of Civil Government," in The Portable Enlightenment Reader, ed.
Isaac Kramnick (New York: Penguin, 1995) 395.
17
Gordon Wood, Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different (East Rutherford, NJ:
Penguin Group, 2006) 23.
18
Gordon S Wood, Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 (New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, 2009) 7.
19
Isaac Kramnick, ed., The Portable Enlightenment Reader, x-xii.
20
Robert Middlekauff, The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789, 2nd Edition, ed.
David Kennedy (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2005) 51.

13
power of the state.‖21 The Glorious Revolution indirectly shaped American history even though
it occurred an ocean away and nearly a century earlier. After 1688 the sovereignty of Americans,
as well as, that of Englishmen resided in the hands of Parliament and instead of subjection to one
tyrant, the King, British subjects found themselves subjected to many tyrants: the House of Lords
and the House of Commons.
Colonial American‘s perceived themselves as being British citizens, protected by the
British Constitution and afforded the same protections of the Crown as any Englishman;
however, many developed unique political beliefs that were viewed as extremist by the English.
According to Robert Middlekauf, scholars labeled these beliefs radical Whig Ideology and
argued that the British political tumult of the seventeenth century birthed this new, yet soon to be
important, political thought.22 These ideas, that a majority of the colonists identified with,
became ingrained in the American mindset and coalesced around ―two sorts of threats to political
freedom: a general moral decay of the people that would invite the intrusion of evil despotic
rulers, and the encroachment of the executive authority upon the legislature, the attempt that
power always made to subdue the liberty protected by mixed government.‖23 Parliament asserted
its authority through the Stamp Act, the Quartering Act, and the other Intolerable Acts.
Parliaments assertion within the context of this radical Whig Ideology, that had taken root in the
political arena of America, proved out the fear of the ―attempt that power always made to subdue
the liberty.‖24
The colonists viewed Parliamentary confiscation of property, by way of taxation and
duties, as usurpation of their individual liberties. Americans whole heartily embraced the
philosophy of Locke, which bound together life, liberty and property as rights inherent to being
free men. The rights of life and liberty depended upon the right to property; because, economic
activity even survival was dependent upon property, similarly, political participation or suffrage
depended upon property; therefore, from the perspective of the Americans property rights
defined life and liberty.25 Americans lived under the assumption of the same constitutional
protections as other British subjects including taxation only with representation. Concerning
Parliament, Paul Revere announced, in a letter that, ―if they have the right to take one shilling
from us without our consent, they have a right to all we posses; for it is the birthright of an
Englishman, not to be taxed without consent of himself, or a Representative.‖26 Opposing Paul
Revere‘s argument, the British Parliament and King considered the American colonists
appropriately represented, ―like ‗nine tenths of the people of Britain‘ who did not choose their
own representatives were in effect represented.‖27 In fact, only one tenth of the British people
21
Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. 46-47.
22
Robert Middlekauff, The Glorious Cause, 51.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.
25
Benson Bobrick, Angel in the Whirlwind: The Triumph of the American Revolution (New York:
Penguin Group, 1997) 63-68.
26
Ibid., 77.
27
Ibid.

14
were propertied, a requirement of suffrage, therefore, the Americans were represented as most
Englishmen and better than some other subjects of the Crown. Patrick Henry effectively and
accurately expressed the American‘s argument and political ideology with his fifth, and most
controversial, resolution offered in the Virginia House of Burgesses stating, ―that the General
Assembly of this Colony have the only and sole exclusive right and power to lay taxes and
impositions upon the inhabitants of this colony;‖ he argued further that attempts by any other
political body, such as the British Parliament, or any other person, such as King George, ―to vest
such power . . . has the manifest tendency to destroy British as well as American freedom.‖28
The American colonists and the British Empire approached a cross roads of history that
the Comte de Vergennes predicted twelve years earlier while serving as French Ambassador in
Constantinople. In the letter Vergennes advised that, ―the colonies will no longer need Britain‘s
protection . . . she will call on them to contribute toward supporting the burdens . . . and they will
answer by striking off their chains.‖29 Benjamin Franklin was less sure of a united colonial action
and wondered if the thirteen separate colonies could unite for any reason, ―‗if they could not
agree to unite against the French and Indians, can it reasonably be supposed that there is any
danger of their uniting against their own nation;‘‖ he deemed the likelihood as ―impossible;‖
however, he added the caveat ―unless . . . they are made to feel ‗the most grievous tyranny and
oppression.‘‖30
Franklin‘s caveat and the Comte de Vergennes letter proved prophetic as the American‘s
were made to feel ―grievous tyranny.‖ The political circumstances in America illustrated the
belief that the Glorious Revolution did not transfer sovereignty far enough from the historical
center of tyranny. The political circumstances of 1775 as witnessed by the founding fathers,
showed America subjugated to a British political system where citizens other than Americans,
elected the House of Commons, which exercised rule over America; therefore, the Americans
viewed themselves as ―subjects of subjects.‖31 The Americans suffered through the
Parliamentary confiscations of the Stamp Act, the Quartering Act, the other Intolerable Acts, and
ultimately endured the dissolution of their elected representative assemblies, until May 10, 1776
when the Continental Congress counseled that ―the respective assemblies and conventions of the
United Colonies . . . that they adopt such government as shall, in the opinion of the
representatives of the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in
particular and American in general.‖32
Finally on July 4, 1776, Thomas Jefferson, and committee, with British war ships off the
coast of New York, New Jersey and South Carolina, agreed and set to paper the ideology of
1776. The Declaration of Independence furnished a culminating written summary of a political
and ideological shift that began with the Glorious Revolution in 1688. The founding fathers
28
Ibid., 73.
29
Ibid., 29.
30
Ibid.
31
Pauline Maier, American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence (New York: Vintage
Books, 1998) 21.
32
Ibid., 37.

15
moved ideology to action when they put ―their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor‖ at risk
by declaring that liberty was a natural right.33 Americans declared with blood, that government‘s
only authority is derived from the consent of the governed and they exercised their natural rights
to throw off the chains of oppression and tyranny.
The founding fathers‘ wisdom carried politics in America from the lofty ideals of
committees, documents, and debates, through the trials of war and finally with uncanny
creativity they instilled the ideology into a functioning government based on a type of ambiguous
federalism, whose benefits were illustrated and defended by Publius prior to ratification.34 The
establishment of the new federal government would be guided by founders like George
Washington, whose 1783 circular letter to the Governors of the colonies, stated that for the new
country to flourish it needed ―an indissoluble union of the states under one federal head and a
friendly disposition among the people . . . to forget their local prejudices and policies . . . to
sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the community.‖35 Washington‘s advice
reiterated the republican reliance on the virtue of the citizenry. Washington himself provided two
historic lessons of classical republican disinterestedness and virtue when he, as the victorious
conquering general, surrendered his commission to the Continental Congress stating that,
―having now finished the work assigned me, I retire from the great theatre of action . . . I here
offer my Commission, and take my leave of all employments of public life‖ and again, perhaps
with greater historical impact, as he refused an additional term as President.36
Much of Washington‘s advice was implemented into the new government; however, most
importantly the new government corrected the fatal flaw of the Glorious Revolution; the
residence of sovereignty. The Glorious Revolution removed sovereignty from the King and
placed it with the British Parliament, while the American Revolution and the Declaration of
Independence removed American sovereignty from the British Parliament. The framers of the
Constitution of The United States of America ultimately created a new theoretical, nationwide,
residence for American sovereignty: We The People. Sovereignty instilled into this new
nationwide concept of We the People offered an adequate explanation and pragmatic solution to
the question: where did the national representative government derive its power.37
The founding of America was a continuation of the Enlightenment ideology of personal
liberty that began in the Glorious Revolution of Great Britain. The founding fathers internalized
classical republican virtues and used the reason of the Enlightenment and pragmatism born of the
33
Thomas Jefferson, "The Declaration of Independence."
34
Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and Madison James, The Federalist Papers, ed. Garry Wills (New York,
NY: Bantam Classics, 2003) xiii.
35
George Washington, "George Washington to John Hancock (Circular) 11 June 1783," The Papers of
George Washington, University of Virginia,
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/constitution/1784/hancock.html (accessed February 24, 2010).
36
George Washington, "George Washington's Resignation Address to the Continental Congress," The
Papers of George Washington, Univeristy of Virginia, December 23, 1783,
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/revolution/resignation.html (accessed February 24, 2010).
37
Edmund S. Morgan, Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America
(New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988) 283.

16
American Revolution to create We the People, a place where American sovereignty could reside,
a political institution far removed from the historical center of tyranny. Was the founding of
America special? Absolutely.
America‘s founding began a new era of political ideology, where the supremacy of
individual liberty would wax and wane in opposition to strong central government, yet never
yield to despotism. This uniquely American political ideology matured to become the antithesis
of tyrannical despots the world over. The colonist waged the Revolutionary War to remove the
tyrannical leadership of King George and Parliament; and, through the actions of the Revolution,
and the wisdom gained from the trials of war, the founders recognized and created a government
with the express purpose of protecting individual liberty.
William R Cox is an American History graduate student at American Public University who teaches in
the financial services and non-profit industries.
Bibliography
Bacon, Francis. "Reason and Nature: The New Science." In The Portable Enlightenment Reader, edited
by Isaac Kramnick. New York: Penguin Books, 1995.
Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press, 1992.
Bobrick, Benson. Angel in the Whirlwind: The Triumph of the American Revolution. New York: Penguin
Group, 1997.
Breisach, Ernst. Historiography Ancient, Medieval, and Modern. 3rd Edition. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press, 2007.
Ellis, Joseph. American Creation Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic. New York,
NY: Vintage Books, 2007.
—. Founding Brothers The Revolutionary Generation. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2002.
Hamilton, Alexander, John Jay, and Madison James. The Federalist Papers. Edited by Garry Wills. New
York, NY: Bantam Classics, 2003.
Holmes, David L. The Faiths of the Founding Fathers. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Jefferson, Thomas. "The Declaration of Independence." Philidelphia, PA: Continental Congress, July 4,
1776.
Kramnick, Isaac, ed. The Portable Enlightenment Reader. New York: Penguin Books, 1995.
Locke, John. "The Second Treatise of Civil Government." In The Portable Enlightenment Reader, edited
by Isaac Kramnick. New York: Penguin, 1995.

17
Maier, Pauline. American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. New York: Vintage
Books, 1998.
Middlekauff, Robert. The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789. 2nd Edition. Edited by
David Kennedy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Morgan, Edmund S. Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America.
New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988.
Smith, Adam. "The Wealth of Nations." In The Portable Enlightenment Reader, edited by Isaac
Kramnick. New York: Penguin Books, 1995.
Turner, Fredrick Jackson. "AHA Presidential Address: Social Forces in American History." American
Historical Association. http://www.historians.org/info/aha_history/fjturner.htm (accessed February 7,
2010).
Washington, George. "George Washington to John Hancock (Circular) 11 June 1783." The Papers of
George Washington. University of Virginia.
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/constitution/1784/hancock.html (accessed February 24, 2010).
—. "George Washington's Resignation Address to the Continental Congress." The Papers of George
Washington. Univeristy of Virginia. December 23, 1783.
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/revolution/resignation.html (accessed February 24, 2010).
Wood, Gordon. Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press, 2009.
—. Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different. East Rutherford, NJ: Penguin Group,
2006.
—. The Creation of the American Republic: 1776-1787. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina
Press, 1998.

18
The Penning of Gettysburg:

Historiographical Accounts from Different Perspectives
JAMES D. BARLOW
The Battle of Gettysburg is one of the most debated topics in American History and
American Military History. The battle that has been arguably claimed as the turning point of the
American Civil War has had over a hundred books written about the three days in early July,
1863. Two American armies faced each other in the hot, humid sun around a little town of
Pennsylvania, in which was the second time that the Confederate States of America (CSA)
attempted to invade the North in an effort to weaken the will of the northern people to continue
war.
Summary of the Battle of Gettysburg. General Robert E. Lee proposed a plan to
Jefferson Davis, President of the CSA, to invade the north, striking a stunning blow to the Army
of the Potomac, and cutting them off from Washington D.C. This plan was necessary because the
lands of Virginia had been made barren by both armies and Lee could not support his army in
that country any longer. Also, Lee understood that peace could be achieved by breaking the will
of the northern people to continue the war. Lee moved out of Virginia moving north using the
Blue Ridge Mountains to block his movements briefly aided by General Stewart‘s cavalry for
support. General Hooker, recently defeated at Fredericksburg, resigned command of the Army of
the Potomac and General George Meade was given command by President Lincoln. Once Meade
knew that Lee was moving north, he pursued Lee across Maryland and into Pennsylvania. Both
armies met at a small town that was interconnected by roads and railroads, but had no military
significance whatsoever. The battle would take place on the streets and fields of a small town
and would provide massive amounts of deaths to many a good man, both Union and
Confederate.
The battle would last for three days starting on July 1, 1863. The first day would consist
of a major Confederate route; three Confederate corps pushed two Union corps from Gettysburg
south and east of town to higher elevations on Culp‘s hill and Cemetery hill. Day two would
consist of Lee‘s decisions to attack both ends of the Union lines, which were in the form of a fish
hook along the two higher elevations. Both sides would gain and lose ground, but due to General
Stewart‘s Confederate cavalry not being on scene until late in the second day, Lee did not know
the formations of the Union corps as they came up from Maryland. At the end of the day, Meade
still had control of the higher elevations south and east of Gettysburg and the Confederates had
lines of battle set up north of Gettysburg all the way around the west of Gettysburg. Day three
would consist of a failed attack on Culp‘s hill by the Confederates and failed cavalry charge east
of town by Stewart. This would lay the ground work for the slaughter of ―Picket‘s Charge‖.
General George Picket‘s Virginians had not engaged in the first two days of the battle
and they were the freshest troops on the scene. A massive cannonade would precede his charge
on the center of the Union lines at a position known as the angle on Cemetery Ridge. This charge

19
of three divisions of Confederate infantry would provide Lee a total loss of approximately
23,231 men over the three day battle.1 The Union losses would total 23,054 over the same time
frame.2
My interest in the Battle of Gettysburg. This battle and the entire Civil War gained my
interest as a young boy growing up in middle Tennessee. Movies such as Red Badge of Courage
and library books written about battles of the Civil War were among my favorites to watch and
read as a child. As I matured in life and through the secondary school system in Tennessee, if
there was a paper or project, I did my research or report during this time in American nineteenth
century history. I had become an amateur ―buff‖ by the time I entered college and it was then
that I was exposed to the critically acclaimed book called the Killer Angels by Michael Shaara.
His book was a fictional tale about a factual battle with fictional and non-fictional characters.
―You may find it a different story from the one you learned in school. There have been many
versions of that battle and that war. I have therefore avoided historical opinions and gone back
primarily to the words of the men themselves, their letters and other documents. I have not
consciously changed any fact. I have condensed some of the action, for the sake of clarity, and
eliminated some minor characters for brevity; but though I have often had to choose between
confliction viewpoints, I have not knowingly violated the action.‖3 This book is my motivation
for further research and quest for knowledge about the Battle of Gettysburg.
Being a student of American nineteenth century history has led me to building a library
of books concerning the Civil War and the Battle of Gettysburg. I have found a place in my local
library that is full of such material in southeastern Virginia.
Why search through the historiography of Gettysburg? From what I have noticed
about all the writings about the battle that there are significant differences in the writing, style,
and information provided in each one. Why did people write differently about the battle? Why
are there so many different views about this part of the American Civil War? Who were the
authors and why did they put forth the effort to publish such works? I plan to show examples of
different styles and viewpoints of the Battle of Gettysburg and why they were penned. This battle
of the American Civil War provides a vast journey through the historiography of past writers and
present day historians. This journey is my version of a historiographical account of the Battle of
Gettysburg. Please note that not all of the works concerning the battle are included in this
document. For that to be successful, the document would require many years of research and
would be quite a long read. Having a vast knowledge of the battle allowed me to select certain
works because of my familiarity with them and by no means are limited to these writings.
Consider this my personal choices and I will explain why I chose them.
Writers that were involved in the Battle of Gettysburg. Jesse Bowman Young was an
officer in the battle serving as a First Lieutenant, Company B, Eighty-forth Pennsylvania
Infantry but was filling the duties as assistant provost marshal for Second Division, Third Army
1
Mark Adkin, The Gettysburg Companion (Mechanicsburg: Stackpole Books, 2008), 507.
2
Ibid., 509.
3
Michael Shaara, The Killer Angels (New York: Ballantine Books, 1974), VII.

20
Corps. It was while he was filling those duties that he was able to gain accounts of the battle and
see the documentation thereof. His book The Battle of Gettysburg starts off with laying out the
groundwork prior to the battle then quickly moves to the narrative of the battle. His accounts of
battle were taken from official records while he lived in Gettysburg following the war and the
Confederate Military History when he lived in Jacksonville, Florida. He walked every step of the
battle and knew where each unit was positioned. ―During my residence in Gettysburg I came to
know by personal contact and daily study every foot of the great battle-field, and almost literally
the location of every organization on either side which took part in the engagement.‖4 It is
written in a nice narrative format concluding in part III with lists and rosters that are invaluable
to the researcher. I consider his work as a recount of what happened and his motive for writing
this book was to do a complete work on the battle using his involvement and lecturing tour
following the war as a catapult for his notoriety. His book was reviewed by the New York Times
Book Review on Sunday June 29, 1913 and stated: ―The extraordinary thing is that Mr. Young
has succeeded in assimilating all his materials, and instead of making a book out of them, has
presented an interpretation which owes something to them, but more to his own constructive
insight. The reader will turn from this volume with a clear and consistent impression of a crucial
episode in our history as a nation‖.5
James Longstreet wrote a book in 1896 titled From Manassas to Appomattox. This work
by Longstreet, the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia‘s First Corps, was considered
his memoirs of the Civil War in America, and it was one of the few written by a high level
commander on the southern side. Longstreet participated in most of the major campaigns was
considered Lee‘s right hand man once General Jackson was killed. He was named as Lee‘s old
war horse and served in command throughout the entire war. This book is not an autobiography,
but is a memoir. Longstreet wrote this memoir to defend his judgment and decisions made on the
battlefield. Following the war, certain groups who still had loyalties to the Confederacy tried to
lay blame on any failures in command. The Virginia Campaign had proved successful and they
looked to battles that did not have a decisive Confederate victory. These critics, many of whom
were former Confederate soldiers, turned their sights toward Gettysburg and General Longstreet.
Many political leaders in the south took offense that James Longstreet had changed his political
affiliation to the Republican Party and was a good friend of U. S. Grant, the current President of
the United States. This book From Manassas to Appomattox was Longstreet‘s statement to set
those critics straight and to document the war and Battle of Gettysburg from his point of view.
―The outstanding feature From Manassas to Appomattox is Longstreet‘s critical evaluation of
Robert E. Lee‘s generalship. Amid a tidal wave of sycophantic Southern writings, Longstreet
was almost alone among his contemporaries in insisting that Lee was a fallible human being
rather than a demigod.‖6 Longstreet put a lot of effort in documenting the events of the Battle of
Gettysburg. He dedicated three chapters, one for each day of battle, to document his position on
4
Jesse Bowman Young, The Battle of Gettysburg (Carlisle: Kallmann Publishers, 1996), 4.
5
Jesse Bowman Young, The Battle of Gettysburg (Carlisle: Kallmann Publishers, 1996), xiii.
6
James Longstreet, From Manassas to Appomattox (New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc, 2004), xxii.

21
the events that took place there. In those chapters, Longstreet references some of his orders and
battle statistics from his position as the First Corps Commander of the Army of Northern
Virginia. These references and narrative were very influential to Michael Shaara‘s book The
Killer Angels that I mentioned earlier in this paper. My interpretation of his writings about the
battle are to clear his name of any wrong doing during the battle that his critics tried to lay upon
him following the war and thus it makes for a very good read and reference material. This is a
must have book for the Civil War historian to have in his/her library.
Having read The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara and A Killer Angels Companion by D.
Scott Hartwig, I was interested in one of the characters of the story named Colonial Fremantle,
who was a British officer that observed the Battle of Gettysburg. I was soon to realize that A.J.L.
Fremantle was an actual witness in the battle and he documented his observations in a diary. This
diary was published in a book called Two Witnesses at Gettysburg. What is unique about this
book is that it documents two personal accounts of the battle from different perspectives.
Whitelaw Reid wrote from a northern perspective and little of this is remembered. Colonial
Fremantle wrote from the southern perspective and his work has been referenced in many other
works.7
Reid‘s accounts in the book are that of a newspaper reporter. His reports are short letters
to his paper describing what he sees and observes from the Union side of the battle. Not many
details are included, but more of a narrative of what is going on from his point of view.
Colonial Fremantle listed the events of the battle in passages, such as one would when
making diary entries. The entries are very brief and to the point, but also contain personal
observations that are appealing to the history reader. It gives life to the telling of the story, not in
a character based format, but from what he was thinking or doing at that time and what he
(Colonial Fremantle) thought was important. This type of writing is very useful to a researcher
because it was not influenced by other readings following the events. His description of General
Lee is one of the best that has been written and brings life to the honored general. I also find this
book as a must have for those interested in the battle from the point of view of one that was
there.
Writers that were in-directly involved in the Battle of Gettysburg. E. A. Pollard was
an editor of the Richmond Examiner from 1861 to 1867 and wrote a book compiling his
information into events and political matters called The Lost Cause. This was the South‘s first
version of the war and it was originally published in 1886. Pollard writes in the introduction,
―The author desires to add an explanation of the plan of composition he has pursued in the work.
It is impossible to write history as an intelligible whole, and to secure its ends, without
preserving a certain dramatic unity in the narrative. It is by such unity that the lesson of history is
conveyed, and its impression properly effected; and to do this it becomes necessary to discard
from the narrative many small incidents, either episodal in their nature, or of no importance in
the logical chain of events. Instead of a confused chronological collection of events, he has
7
Reid, Whitelaw and A. J. L. Fremantle, Two Witnesses at Gettysburg, ed. Gary W. Gallagher (West
Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), xv

22
sought to prepare for the reader a compact and logical narrative that will keep his attention close
to the main movement of the story, and put instruction as to causes hand in hand with the
information of events.‖8
What intrigued me mostly about The Lost Cause was for the first time in my research on
The Battle of Gettysburg, the writer penned that General Lee was at fault following the first day
of battle. ―As Ewell and Hill prepared for a fresh attach, they were halted by Gen. Lee, who
deemed it advisable to abstain from pressuring his advantage until the arrival of the remainder of
his army. The failure of Gen. Lee to follow up the victory of the 1st, enabled the enemy to take at
leisure, and in full force, one of the strongest positions in any action of the war, and to turn the
tables of the battle-field completely upon the Confederates.‖9 This statement from a southern
gentleman was definitely fuel for those critics of the war, but his writing of the account is strictly
to the point. No text was used for description, just a brief narration of the battle. I mention this
work not because I think it is a must read, but because of the controversy of the claim and the
time that it was written.
Following the War, General Longstreet married his second wife Helen Dortch Longstreet
and she wrote a book about Longstreet and his involvement in the Army of Northern Virginia.
Carl Breihan wrote in the introduction to the 1988 edition of this book, ―The book will give the
reader better insight of this magnificent person. The many tributes and resolutions therein should
also close, once and for all, the chapter in Longstreet‘s life that never should have occurred.
General Longstreet never believed that Lee ever charged him with disobedience of slow and
obstructive movements at Gettysburg.‖10 Helen Longstreet wrote in the preface, ―I was writing
for love of him whose dear name and fame had been attached; to place before his fading vision
enduring appreciation of his valiant deeds as a soldier and high qualities as a gentleman.
Providence decreed otherwise. While the opening chapters were running into type, the Great
Captain on High called him hence, where he can at last have his wrongs on earth forever
righted.‖11 This calling that Helen had for her husband was to set the records straight, even when
Longstreet was on his dying bed, for those who criticized him for the defeat at Gettysburg. The
book lists reports and letters to and from Longstreet and provides the reader a wealth of
information for each to make their own decision. I mention this book in this document for
another reason. When this book was being drafted, and General Longstreet passed away, many
Southern organizations sent resolution letters to Helen to be added into the book. These letters
are a great read for those who were skeptical about Longstreet‘s loyalty to the Southern cause
and how each organization praised his leadership and service to the CSA.
Historian Accounts of the Battle of Gettysburg. The next section of this document will
show how historians wrote about the battle. These writers were not there or had interaction with
those that were there; however, there material was from pure research. Many of these authors are
8
E. A. Pollard, The Lost Cause (Avenel: Gramercy Books, 1994), introduction.
9
Ibid., 406.
10
Hellen D. Longstreet, Lee and Longstreet at High Tide (Wilmington: Broadfoot Publishing Comapany,
1989), introduction.
11
Ibid., 9.

23
very famous and some have actually written textbooks that are still used today. Needless to say,
their documentation provided more details because of the manner of the research and the
questions that they answered in preparation for their books. As mentioned earlier, these are not
the only books about the battle, but the ones that I have chosen to discuss in this document.
Harry W. Pfanz wrote a great book describing certain detailed portions of the battle.
Gettysburg-Culp’s Hill and Cemetery Hill is the book you want to read to get the details of this
portion of battle. It is very concise and contains a wealth of references. Pfanz wrote, ―I attempted
this monograph with the intention of trying to provide a reasonably definitive account of this
portion of the battle, on that has been lacking to this time. Beyond that, I hope that this effort will
have one special positive result- I would like for it to increase interest in this portion of the
battlefield and further its preservation.‖12
The Gettysburg Campaign written by Edwin B. Coddington is labeled as a study in
command. It is unique in that it was written from the view point that the defeat of the South in
this battle was not Lee‘s fault. ―If this justification for another volume on Gettysburg is not
enough, it should be pointed out that the unique feature of this campaign and battle have always
had a fatal attraction for historians. The unusual duration of the campaign and the long, hard
marches in torrid summer weather made an indelible impression upon soldiers in both camps.‖13
High Tide at Gettysburg written by Glenn Tucker is another historian account of the
battle. What sets his volume apart from many is that not only does he discuss the generals and
their decisions, but he ventures into the front lines of battle and displays a scene for the reader
from the intimate accounts of men and lower grade officers. He is one that brings the reader to
the splendid role of Pettigrew‘s and Trimble‘s men on the third day of battle that is often left out.
He writes ―The Pettigrew-Trimble march across the open fields was as stirring and magnificent
as the inspiring advance of Pickett‘s Virginians. One of the groups of Confederate officers
observing on Seminary Ridge said Pettigrew‘s front as it burst from the woods appeared to cover
twice that of Pickett‘s. These officers, thrilled by the sight, thought from the way the column
filled the plain that it must be Hill‘s entire corps.‖14
The next book that I would like to mention is written by a historian who has been made
famous from his appearances on the History Channel and PBS. Shelby Foote wrote about the
campaign in a work titled Stars in Their Courses. This book is indicative of Foote‘s story writing
ability by putting drama into the history of battle. His massive work The Civil War which took
twenty years to complete has been marveled by readers and historians alike. Stars in Their
Courses was taken from the center of the second volume and tells the story of the Battle of
Gettysburg. I picked this work because of his experience as a novel writer of fiction and non-
fiction. He plays to these attributes and lays the history of battle in story board format. I also
picked this book because of an entry in the front of the book that sums up why many study the
12
Harry W. Pfanz, Gettysburg- Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill (Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina Press, 1993), xvi.
13
Edwin B. Coddington, The Gettysburg Campaign (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1968), ix.
14
Glenn Tucker, High Tide at Gettysburg (Dayton: Morningside House, Inc, 1983), 368.

24
Civil War. ―Any understanding of this nation has to be based, and I mean really based, on an
understanding of the Civil War. I believe that firmly. It defined us. The Revolution did what it
did. Our involvement in European wars, beginning with the First World War, did what it did, But
the Civil War defined us as what we are and it opened us to being what we became, good and
bad things. And it is very necessary, if you‘re going to understand the American character in the
twentieth century, to learn about this enormous catastrophe of the mid-nineteenth century. It was
the crossroads of our being, and it was a hell of a crossroads.‖15
Thomas A. Desjardin wrote a book in 2003 about how the story of Gettysburg has been
shaped over the years by Americans. These Honored Dead discusses the themes and myths
associated with the battle. He writes in his introduction, ―The chapters that follow, then, are part
exploration and part explanation of the multitude of meanings that Americans have attached to
the story of Gettysburg in the first 140 years since the battle ended. They lay out some of the
social, political, and cultural themes that have helped shape Gettysburg mythology, and they
attempt to expose some of the myths-from the great whoppers to the minor mistakes-that have
made it such an important national symbol.‖16
Another historian who documented the war from an interesting perspective was J. Cutler
Andrews. He wrote two books about how each side reported the Civil War and the Battle of
Gettysburg. In his first book The North Reports the Civil War, he writes in chapter 16 about how
the Newsman saw the battle. He uses newspaper reports to draw information to display to the
reader and referenced them well. ―The army correspondents who witnessed the three-day battle
hardly could visualize all that it was to mean.‖17 The success of this book brought a call upon
him to provide an account from the Southern perspective and Andrews did just that. His next
book, The South Reports the Civil War displayed that in Southern newspapers, partisan politics
played a major role in the writings in their papers. More space was dedicated to national events
than local events in the South. ―It was almost inevitable that these twin books should deal with
much the same kind of subject matter and employ a generally similar approach. When I write, I
prefer a combination of narrative and expository history to the topical, or problem-oriented,
approach favored by many present-day American historians.‖18
The next book that I would like to mention is one that is a required textbook at many
colleges. Written by Pulitzer Prize winner James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom has been
acclaimed as the finest one-volume history of the American Civil War ever published.
McPherson dedicates chapter 21 to the summer of 1863. His writing is a must read because of
the way he brings into the pages the social and political accounts surrounding the events of the
Battle of Gettysburg. His book is not just a study of tactics and battle movements, but how both
sides were socially involved in the conflict. ―The multiple meanings of slavery and freedom, and
15
Shelby Foote, Stars in Their Courses (New York: Modern Library, 1994), viii.
16
Thomas A. Desjardin, These Honored Dead (Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 2003), xxii.
17
J. Cutler Andrews, The North Reports the Civil War (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1985),
406.
18
J. Cutler Andrews, The South Reports the Civil War (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1985),
vii.

25
how they dissolved and reformed into new patterns in the crucible of war, constitute a central
theme of this book.‖19 It has become one of my favorites because of how all the battles and
political matters are tied together in the text.
The final book that I would like to mention is my favorite of all the books about the
Battle of Gettysburg. I picked it up from the visitor‘s center at the Gettysburg National Military
Park and it‘s loaded with information. The Gettysburg Companion is a complete guide to
America‘s most famous battle. Mark Adkin wrote this book not to provide another narrative
about the battle, but to assist those in studying the battle.
―It does not provide a blow-by-blow account of the action, but rather looks at a series of
differing aspects of the campaign, the commanders, the troops, their weapons and administration,
and the battlefield itself, while a number of highlights in the fighting are dealt with in
considerable detail. All this is done with the help of an extensive number of maps, diagrams,
uniform plates, photographs and panoramic views- virtually all in color.‖20 I would consider this
a must have book for the enthusiast who needs a reference to go along with the narrative in
which they are reading. I have found myself using the material found in this book while I read
other writings to get a bearing on the battlefield. The bibliography of this book is huge. Adkin
used many primary and secondary sources to document troop movements and various aspects
related to the battle. I would consider this more of a reference book than one you can pick up and
read, however, I mentioned it because of the wealth of knowledge it contains and the
historiography of it. It‘s unique and that‘s why I have it listed as the last book written by a
historian that wrote from research.
Analysis. All the books mentioned have a central subject in common, The Battle of
Gettysburg, but they are for the most part different in how they portray it. The books written by
authors who were engaged in the battle had the view point of having been there. They told the
accounts and actions required to provide the reader a telling of the event. Those books written by
those in-directly involved were penned to prove something. They wanted to prove a certain view
point or to defend characters actions. They also were very vague as to what could be told of the
battle. They were limited to letters, diary entries and newspaper articles that were available at the
time it was composed. As we moved to the books written by historians of a later time, the detail
increased and the stories became more complete. I believe this happened because of the
questions that were asked when preparing the book for publication. The author would try to
connect all the dots that he possibly could to provide the information that the reader required. I
also showed that not all of the books concerning the battle had to be in a story telling or narrative
format. The last two excellent books covered not only social topics, but specific battle plans and
troop information that would bog down a narrative story.
I have even showed that both sides of the conflict reported the battle differently in two
separate books written by newspapermen.
19
James M. McPherson, The Illustrated Battle Cry of Freedom (New York: Tess Press, 2008), xi.
20
Mark Adkin, The Gettysburg Companion (Mechanicsburg: Stackpole Books, 2008), 7.

26
Earlier I asked why people wrote differently about the battle. All of the listed authors
wrote differently because of the audience that they were writing to and the time frame in which
they wrote. Helen Longstreet had a specific audience. She wanted to prove that her husband was
not the scapegoat from the battle. Her husband, General Longstreet even documented his
accounts to prove the same point. It was not to educate a classroom with these books; it was to
answer the questions that were presented to them.
Jesse Young wrote about the battle to tell the story of it. He was there and following the
end of the war, he returned there to learn more and presented his data to audiences through
lecturing. It was his personal accounts coupled with his research the presented the material for
his outstanding work.
Why were there so many different views about this portion of the Civil War? The views
were different because the impact felt across the nation was different. We call The Battle of
Gettysburg the turning point of the war or the high tide of the Confederacy, but when it
happened, we did not know of this because we did not know the outcome. History is mostly
documented by those who win. If the South would have won the war, the skirmish in
Pennsylvania would have been documented differently. Each author that writes about the battle
has their own angle and objective that they are trying to achieve. It is the manner in which they
do this that allows us to criticize the material from a historiographical method.
The authors of the books mentioned in this document range from the soldiers in battle,
the generals that led, newspaper correspondents, and studied historians. Their reasons for writing
about the battle vary between each one. For many, it was personal.
For others, it was for a desire to quench the thirst of knowledge and to share with the
masses. For a few, it was a desire to put their name to the long list of authors who have attempted
to put their own stamp on history and share with the readers a personal interpretation of the
events that unfolded in those three, hot humid days in the little town of Gettysburg. To each, this
was there calling. Just as for us who study these events, it is our calling. We must strive to keep
our minds open to the various viewpoints written by different historians and authors to come to
our own conclusions and fully understand why they wanted us to remember the events that
unfolded. It is this quest for knowledge that will allow authors and historians to continue writing
about The Battle of Gettysburg. The Battle of Gettysburg will continue to be one of the most
debated and written accounts of American history. Understanding how it was the turning point of
the war will allow those to comprehend how our country faced these challenges and overcame
them and will provide the necessary backdrop for all Americans to learn about our growth as a
nation. A nation that has broke the chains of slavery, segregation, and civil rights. We learn from
our mistakes and these mistakes have caused us to be a stronger nation. This is true United States
that is bound by our past, present and future for the whole world to bear witness.
James D. Barlow is a student at American Military University.

27
Bibliography
Adkin, Mark. The Gettysburg Companion. Mechanicsburg: Stackpole Books, 2008.
Andrews, J. Cutler. The North Reports the Civil War. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1985.
Andrews, J. Cutler. The South Reports the Civil War. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1985.
Coddington, Edwin B. The Gettysburg Campaign. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1968.
Desjardin, Thomas A. These Honored Dead. Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 2003.
Foote, Shelby. Stars in Their Courses. New York: Modern Library, 1994.
Longstreet, Hellen D. Lee and Longstreet at High Tide. Wilmington: Broadfoot Publishing Company,
1989.
Longstreet, James. From Manassas to Appomattox. New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc, 2004.
McPherson, James M. The Illustrated Battle Cry of Freedom. New York: Tess Press, 2008.
Pfanz, Harry W. Gettysburg- Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina Press, 1993.
Pollard, E. A. The Lost Cause. Avenel: Gramercy Books, 1994.
Reid, Whitelaw and A. J. L. Fremantle. Two Witnesses at Gettysburg. Edited by Gary W. Gallagher. West
Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
Shaara, Michael. The Killer Angels. New York: Ballantine Books, 1974.
Tucker, Glenn. High Tide at Gettysburg. Dayton: Morningside House, Inc, 1983.
Young, Jesse Bowman. The Battle of Gettysburg. Carlisle: Kallmann Publishers, 1996.

28
The Leadership Foundations of George Washington

ANTHONY SICILIANO
In June 1775, the Continental Congress began debate on the selection of a commander to
lead its fledgling Army. Delegates from New England wanted a northerner to lead the Army; a
southerner in charge of northern troops, on northern land, was ‗preposterous‘. John Adams
understood that it was important to tie the colonies together so that there was a unity of purpose.
The logical conclusion was to have a southern leader command the northern armies. As the
delegates discussed their options, it became clear that they needed a man with certain leadership
qualities that reached beyond the battlefield. The delegates repeatedly ―mentioned one name over
and over again: George Washington.‖1 Why George Washington? The Congress had many good
men to choose from, most with far more formal education. However, even then, the Congress
knew that Washington was different. Washington understood the ‗big picture‘ and was a
trustworthy man who stayed true to his principles. Throughout the Revolution, in good times and
bad, Washington never wavered from his outlook or convictions. Washington maintained these
values even after the war, when his leadership was required at the Constitutional Convention and
as the first President. George Washington can credit his success as a leader to two core
principles: vision and character.
No one person served as a role model for George Washington. Washington developed his
leadership abilities from a many different areas and people. Throughout his life, he picked key
traits from whomever he could, when he could.2 Nearly everyone he met had something to offer
Washington. He sought out family, in-laws, co-workers, neighbors, and even strangers.3 As an
adult, he continued this process of learning from others. In contrast to Benjamin Franklin,
Washington never traveled abroad and led a provincial life. He understood that there were things
he did not know. To compensate for this, Washington met foreigners in America – diplomats,
tourists, military officers and Natives. Washington had a vision of where he needed to go, and
where he needed to take the Nation. He acted upon that vision by seeking knowledge and
information from all available resources. Vision consists of three traits: a far-reaching idea,
organization, and personal charisma.
An effective leader has to have a vision – a direction in which he wants to take his
organization. This can be something relatively small (increasing sales in the next quarter), or
large (establishing a new, free nation). The leader‘s vision is what forms the foundation for
nearly everything else he tries to accomplish. The vision contains ―ideas and goals which remain
constant no matter how long it takes to realize them and regardless of the difficulties which the
1 Jay A. Perry and others, The Real George Washington (National Center for Constitutional Studies,
2008), 124.
2 Richard Brookhiser, George Washington on Leadership (New York: Basic Books, 2008), 6.
3 Ibid.

29
leader encounters.‖4 Washington‘s fundamental vision was that of a United States free from
foreign control.5 Together with the other Founders, Washington maintained a vision of a free
Republic throughout his adult life. Washington ―thought like an ‗American‘ before anyone know
what that meant‖ by honestly believing that the republican form of government work.6 In George
Washington & American Constitutionalism, Dr. Glenn A. Phelps, states that Washington‘s
―writings reveal a clear, thoughtful, and remarkably coherent vision of what he hoped an
American republic would become. These notions began to emerge early in the 1770s, took on a
sharper, clearer perspective during the Revolution, and changed little thereafter.‖7 This shows a
gradual maturity in Washington‘s vision and thinking all through the founding of the United
States.
Next, Washington was able to create organizational structures that helped facilitate his
grand vision. Washington‘s organizational style was the ‗Hub and Wheel‘ system. As president,
Thomas Jefferson explained to his cabinet that Washington would sit as the hub of the wheel.
―He formed a central point for the different branches… preserv[ing] a unity of object and action
among them.‖8 In George Washington on Leadership, Richard Brookhiser explains that
Washington would sometimes deal with individuals (the spokes) or with a team (the rim) (Figure
1). Sometimes Washington would access people outside the official organization, at his own
prerogative. Throughout, Washington remained the center point for all decisions. This model
served Washington throughout his career. As Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army,
Washington would use this model to establish ‗councils of war‘ that took binding votes.9 This
model also allowed him to hear all sides of an argument and make informed decisions. During
the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson described Washington‘s decision-making skills:
―Refraining if he saw a doubt, but when once decided, going through with purpose, whatever
obstacles opposed.‖10
4 Richard C. Stazesky, ―George Washington, Genius in Leadership,‖ The Papers of George Washington,
University of Virginia, http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/articles/stazesky.html.
5 James C. Rees and Stephen Spignesi, George Washington's Leadership Lessons (Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007), 4.
6 Ibid.
7 Glenn A. Phelps, George Washington & American Constitutionalism (Lawrence, KS: University Press
of Kansas, 1994), viii.
8 Brookhiser, 55
9 Ibid., 56.
10 Ibid., 35.

30
Team (Rim)
Adams
Jefferson Knox
GW Hamilton
Randolph
Martha
Individual (Spoke)
Individual outside
of organization
Figure 1. An example of George Washington‘s ‗Hub and Wheel‘ organizational model.
Lastly, Washington was a charismatic leader who could attract others to follow him. He
was able to instill his vision in others so that they felt a sense of ownership in that vision. He
consistently found a way to bring out the best in people, despite their own feelings of ineptitude,
defeat – or even mutiny. Throughout Revolutionary War, Washington had to struggle to keep his
armies motivated – the Valley Forge campaign, for example. However, one particular episode
highlights Washington‘s ability to turn the tides of emotion – the Newburgh Revolt.
At the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, Congress was nearly broke. Officers in the
Continental Army were anxious to receive the pay Congress promised. The officers were so
angry, that there was serious talk of an insurrection against Congress. On March 15, 1783, the
officers gathered to discuss their options when Washington arrived unannounced. He gave a
prepared speech describing Congress‘s situation and outlining his position in the matter. The
officers were not impressed. Then, Washington produced a letter from a member of Congress
that further explained the situation. Unable to read the letter clearly, Washington produced a set
of reading glasses. As he put them on, he paused and said, ―Gentlemen, you will permit me to
put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my
country.‖11 That moment of vulnerability moved the officers deeper than any speech possibly
could. The moment brought many to tears, and they looked at their Commander-in-Chief with
renewed affection. After Washington left the meeting, the officers voted unanimously to support
11 The History Place, George Washington Speech - Preventing the Revolt of his Officers,
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/washington.htm.

31
Congress, effectively saving the Republic. By defusing this incident, Washington displayed
powerful evidence of his personal charisma.
George Washington, as a visionary leader, developed and maintained a far-reaching idea
of a free republic in America. Additionally, he developed organizational structures that allowed
him to tap into other people while remaining the central decision-maker. Finally, Washington‘s
personal charisma helped keep his people focus on his vision and defused volatile situations
throughout his career.
However, vision was only part of the George Washington equation. Merriam-Webster‘s
Online Dictionary defines ‗character‘, in part, as ―the complex of mental and ethical traits
marking and often individualizing a person, group, or nation <the character of the American
people>.‖12 Character can shape one‘s outlook and decision-making processes. One cannot
discuss Washington‘s leadership abilities without exploring his personal character.
Character was a foundation of George Washington‘s leadership. In fact, it became a life-
long obsession for Washington. This could be because of the limited formal schooling he
received, a fact which disturbed him throughout his life. In order to overcome this lack of formal
schooling, Washington became a voracious reader – searching for personal growth wherever he
could. Washington built his character through study and experience in the pre-Revolutionary
War years.
Washington began his character-building campaign as early as age sixteen. One method
he employed was to copy a series of 110 maxims entitled ―Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior
in Company and Conversation‖ into an exercise book. These maxims covered many topics such
as:
 In the presence of others, sing not to yourself with a humming noise nor drum with your fingers
or feet.
 Kill no vermin, as fleas, lice, ticks, etc., in the sight of others.
 Spit not into the fire… nor set your feet upon the fire, especially if there be meat before it.

13
Cleanse not your teeth with the tablecloth, napkin, fork or knife.
 Additionally, the maxims covered esoteric concepts, which also influenced Washington
throughout his life.
Washington‘s early military career during the French and Indian War also provided many
character-building lessons. Papers written by Washington reveal that he dealt with many
personal misgivings, uncertainties, unreasonable expectations and an explosive temper.14
However, as he matured, he learned to suppress these feelings.
In 1757, Washington returned to Mount Vernon and focused on a program of self-
improvement that would affect him for the rest of his life. He worked hard to improve his
12
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, s.v. ―Character‖, http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/character.
13
Perry, 9.
14
Dorothy Twohig, Peter Henriques, and Don Higginbotham, George Washington and the
Legacy of Character, http://www.fathom.com/course/10701018/session2.html.

32
reputation among his peers. He also paid political dues and sat as a member of the Virginia
House of Burgesses. He even worked to improve his handwriting.15 The years Washington spent
at Mount Vernon prior to the Revolution ―were a nursery for his later conceptions of private
responsibility, reputation and national character.‖16
Washington pursued self-improvement through other venues as well, particularly in
Freemasonry. Freemasonry is a beautiful system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by
symbols where one learns to suppress their passions (i.e., control their emotions). This concept
appealed to a young Washington who struggled to deal with his temper and emotions. As he
stated in a 1794 letter:
My first desire to become a Mason was due to the fact that many of Virginia‘s noblest
sons were Members of the Fraternity…
The Masonic lessons I learned on my admission to Masonry and my contact and
conversations with prominent Masons thereafter were of greatest encouragement in after years
when I encountered and underwent severe trials, especially those at the commencement of the
Revolution.17
Washington held the Fraternity close to his heart throughout his life. Washington would
later state in a 1798 letter to the Grand Lodge of Maryland, ―So far as I am acquainted with the
principles & Doctrines of Free Masonry, I conceive it to be founded in benevolence and to be
exercised only for the good of mankind.‖18
The lessons Washington learned as a Freemason dovetailed with those he had learned
through his own study. The result was a reputation that few American Presidents can match. As
Jason S. Lantzer states in Washington as Cincinnatus: A Model of Leadership, ―… [H]is genius
lay in something other than the precedents he set... Increasingly today, however, few presidents
exhibit his character or adherence to ideas.‖19
The words of Washington‘s contemporaries highlight the respect that Washington‘s
character fostered. In nominating Washington to be the Commander-in-Chief if the Army, John
Adams said, ―I had no hesitation to declare that I had but one gentleman in my mind for that
important command‖ and that Washington was ―a gentleman whose talents and excellent
universal character would [unite the colonies] better than any other person in the Union.‖20
Thomas Jefferson, in remarkable strong words, stated in an 1814 letter to Dr. Walter Jones,
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
William A. Brown, ―George Washington‘s Masonic Career,‖ Transactions of A. Douglas
Smith, Jr. Lodge of Research #1949, vol. 4 (2004): 69.
18
Julius F. Sachse, Washington's Masonic Correspondence as Found among the Washington
Papers in the Library of Congress, (Philadelphia: Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, 1915), 111.
19
Jason S. Lantzer, George Washington: Foundation of Presidential Leadership and Character,
eds. Ethan Fishman, William D. Pederson, and Mark J. Rozell, (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001),
46.
20
Perry, 125.

33
“On the whole, his character was, in its mass, perfect, in nothing bad, in few points indifferent;
and it may truly be said, that never did nature and fortune combine more perfectly to make a man
great, and to place him in the same constellation with whatever worthies have merited from man
an everlasting remembrance. ... These are my opinions of General Washington, which I would
vouch at the judgment seat of God, having been formed on an acquaintance of thirty years...”21
Foreign leaders also marveled at Washington‘s character as a leader. King George III of
England, upon hearing of Washington‘s retirement at the end of the Revolution said, ―If he does
that, he will be the greatest man in the world.‖22 The fact that Washington did not seek power
boggled the King.
George Washington understood that in order to accomplish any goal, he had to have a
clear direction – a vision. As a young man, he also understood that he needed to continuously
improve himself and build his character. Washington established a far-reaching vision of where
he wanted to take the United States. Then, he established an organizational culture that supported
him throughout his professional career. He was able to join his vision and organization together
through his charismatic appeal. Vision may not be enough, if the leader‘s motives are not pure.
Washington‘s highly respected personal character assured everyone that his vision was worth
supporting. The core leadership principles of vision and character are responsible for
Washington‘s success during the founding the United States.
Tony Siciliano is a Chief Warrant Officer in the United States Marine Corps, and currently pursuing a
Masters Degree in Military Studies.
Bibliography
Brookhiser, Robert. George Washington on Leadership. New York: Basic Books, 2008.
Brown, William A. ―George Washington‘s Masonic Career,‖ Transactions of A. Douglas Smith, Jr.
Lodge of Research #1949, vol. 4 (2004): 69.
Lantzer, Jason S. George Washington: Foundation of Presidential Leadership and Character. Edited by
Ethan Fishman, William D. Pederson, and Mark J. Rozell. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. http://www.m-w.com
Perry, Jay A., Andrew M. Allison, and W. Cleon Skousen. The Real George Washington. Vol. 3. The
National Center for Constitutional Studies, 2008.
21
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Walter Jones, January 2, 1814.
22
Gleaves Whitney, ―George Washington, the Greatest Man‖, Ask Gleaves, Grand Valley State
University, http://www.gvsu.edu/hauenstein/?id=AF975CD1-9016-05F6-
DA64A5CEF7C344E7&CFID=9282716&CFTOKEN=68294622.

34
Phelps, Glenn A. George Washington & American Constitutionalism. Lawrence, KS: University Press of
Kansas, 1994.
Rees, James C. and Stephen Spignesi. George Washington's Leadership Lessons. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007.
Sachse, Julius F. Washington's Masonic Correspondence as Found among the Washington Papers in the
Library of Congress. Philadelphia: Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, 1915.
Stazesky, Richard C. ―George Washington, Genius in Leadership.‖ The George Washington Papers.
University of Virginia. http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/articles/stazesky.html.
The History Place. George Washington Speech - Preventing the Revolt of his Officers.
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/washington.htm.
Twohig, Dorothy, Peter Henriques, and Don Higginbotham . " George Washington and the Legacy of
Character." Columbia University. http://www.fathom.com/course/10701018/session2.html.
Whitney, Gleaves. ―George Washington, the Greatest Man.‖ Ask Gleaves. Grand Valley State University.
http://www.gvsu.edu/hauenstein/?id=AF975CD1-9016-05F6-
DA64A5CEF7C344E7&CFID=9282716&CFTOKEN=68294622.

35
Stonehenge‘s Fluid Past

JOHN W. TAYLOR
Since recorded history, speculation has surrounded Stonehenge‘s origins; it has been
regarded as a Roman chariot race track, a Giant‘s Ring taken from Ireland by Merlin, an ancient
Druid temple, a prehistoric observatory, even some sort of extraterrestrial landing sight. Some of
the most important theories on what Stonehenge was used for will be addressed demonstrating
how contemporary attitudes influence our understanding of the past.
First, what Stonehenge is must be considered. Often the first thing imagined when one
hears the word ―Stonehenge‖ is a flat green field with a circular formation of large rectangular
stones standing on end, with a couple having another placed on top, as some inverted U shape,
and perhaps a few stones which have fallen over. Indeed, this all too common image is exactly
what seemingly remains of Stonehenge. While this is true, Stonehenge is the central monument
at the World Heritage Site, located in Wiltshire, England. It was named a World Heritage Site by
the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1986 and
contains many surrounding monuments which include ―the Avenue, the Cursuses, Durrington
Walls, Woodhenge, and the densest concentration of burial mounds in Britain.‖ 1 While these
monuments are in the general region of Stonehenge, the complexity of the site cannot be ignored
and features of it consist of: Aubrey holes which are depressions in the earth believed to have
been first surveyed by John Aubrey in 1663 and later excavated in 1921,2 bluestones which are
stones foreign to the Stonehenge region and specifically stones believed to originate from the
Preseli quarry in Wales, trilithons a term coined by Stuckeley which is Greek for three stones,
consisting of two upright stones supporting a horizontal stone,3 Sarsen stones which are boulders
of solidified sandstone, and Y and Z holes which were the last part of construction on the
monument.
Throughout recorded history, Stonehenge has remained mysterious and several
explanations have been offered as to its purpose and construction. The first written record
surviving is from Geoffry of Monmouth in his Histories of the Kings of Britain, published in the
1130s. To summarize: Following the King‘s defeat of the Saxons and restoration of churches and
order, the King wanted to build a monument that would last forever as a testament to the warriors
who lost their lives. The King set out to find craftsmen capable of building this monument;
however no one would take the job, as they didn‘t think they skilled enough to create such a
1
United Nations, ―Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites - UNESCO World Heritage Center,‖
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/373/ (accessed March 3, 2010).
2
Melissa Lorentz, ―John Aubrey,‖ EMuseaum@Minnesota State University, Mankato,
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/abcde/aubrey_john.html, (accessed March 2,
2010), par 2.
3
William Stuckeley, ―Stonehenge, A Temple Restor‘d to the British Druids,‖ 1704, prof. and format. by
John Bruno Hare, Sacred-texts.com, 2007, http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/str/index.htm, (accessed
March 3, 2010), Chapter 4, par 6.

36
monument. It was then suggested by the Archbishop of Caerleon, Tremounos, that Merlin should
be summoned to erect this monument. When Merlin heard of the King‘s wishes, he said they
should get the Dance of the Giants, Stonehenge, which is on mount Killaraus in Ireland. Merlin
told the King that the stones have healing powers which got to Ireland by giants who brought
them from Africa. With that the King sent Uther Pendragon and 1,500 of his men to Ireland and
fought the Irish king. Once the fighting ended Merlin used his magic to get the stones on the
ships; they were brought back to England, erected, where they still stand as a lasting monument
to the dead warriors.4 As another unique feature of this manuscript, it contains the first known
image of the monument, showing Merlin using his magic to dismantle it. Geoffry of Monmouth
in his Histories of the Kings of Britain offers us a glimpse into an explanation for Stonehenge,
where it comes from, what it does, and what it‘s for; to the giants and the Irish it was a source of
healing, to the British it was a monument for the fallen soldiers. With the coming of the
Renaissance in Europe, mythologized histories were being reexamined and Stonehenge was no
exception.
Between the mid 1600s and 1700s learned men started examining Stonehenge with a
more critical eye. While their speculations on Stonehenge‘s origins do not make for good
science, theses early pioneers of archeology tried to explain how this monument came into
existence. Of particular importance is John Aubrey, ―England‘s first archeologist,‖ and was the
first to ―discover‖ Stonehenge.5 With influential friends and a solid reputation he was
commissioned in 1663 to survey what would later become known as Stonehenge. It was in this
survey he documented depressions in the earth, which later became known as Aubrey holes, as
well as recording that the site was erected by Druids.6 Having the honor of being the first to
survey the monument, he also inspired William Stuckeley, who wrote Stonehenge, a Temple
Restor’d to the British Druids. In his work, Stuckeley first identifies the mystery of Stonehenge,
and how, ―even the oldest of Britons speak of this only by tradition, far above all memorial. They
wonder‘d at Stonehenge then, and were as far to seek about the founders and intent of it, as we
now.‖7 Stuckeley here is comparing how even through history and up until his time, no one
really knew who built Stonehenge and what it was for. A final contemporary to Aubrey and
Stuckeley is John Wood, famous for his architectural works in Bath, England. ―In 1740 John
Wood…made a careful measured survey of Stonehenge…but is the most important measured
survey of Stonehenge ever made,‖ according to History Today.8 These men had accepted the
teachings of Classical literature of ancient Greece and Rome and accepted the popular notation
4
Geoffry of Monmouth, ―Histories of the Kings of Britian,‖ trans. By Sebastian Evans, (1904),
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/gem/index.htm (accessed March 3, 2010), Book VIII Chapters VIII
- XII
5
Lorentz, par 1.
6
Ibid.
7
Stuckeley, , Chapter 1, par 1.
8
Anthony Johnson, ―Solving Stonehenge,‖ History Today, 58 no. 7, (July 2008), Academic Search
Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed March 4, 2010), par 9.

37
of their time that they, or at least the previous inhabitants of the land, were in fact Druids. 9
Stonehenge would remain a relic from a noble and enlightened Druidic past, and, ―Stuckeley‘s
ideas became the norm for more than a century.‖10 By this time Stonehenge had been the
property of giants from Africa then a Druid temple complex. While much more remains to be
said about the periods following these pioneers of Stonehenge, an examination of the most recent
finds from will demonstrate how this monument remains a product of our generation.
The evidence shows that since the first ditch was carved out of the Earth with an antler
pick, Stonehenge has gone through eight stages of construction beginning around 3015 B.C.E.
and lasting until 1520 B.C.E.11 It was between 3015 B.C.E and 2935 B.C.E. the first henge ditch
was carved and bluestones were erected in the Aubrey holes; also from this time, the first
cremation burials took place.12 Evidence further demonstrates that from the beginning of
Stonehenge, it had always been a cemetery, similar to fourteen similar sites in Britain.13 In the
Pearson et al. paper, Who was Buried at Stonehenge goes on to assert, All of the burials
estimated for the…first century could have been generated by the natural deaths occurring within
a single nuclear family.‖14 They go on to say, ―…by the last phases, the deaths would have to
derive from an extended family or from…a large lineage. The population buried at Stonehenge
might well derive from a single dynasty over seven centuries.‖15 Their findings conclude by
declaring Stonehenge did not start as an earth and timber monument that the Aubrey holes
contained Welsh bluestones, and it ―was thus founded as a high status burial ground and
continued as such for at least half a millennium.‖16
These findings have been significant in recent understanding of Stonehenge, if for no
other reason, demonstrating that nearly 500 years earlier than first believed Stonehenge was
made with stones from Wales. Not only that, but Pearson et al. completely reworked the
traditional model of Stonehenge construction and provided an 8 Stage version versus the
traditional 3 Phase model. Although these findings are important, this is not the current
consensus, as other schools of thought regarding the monument exist. Another popular one
challenges what the purpose of Stonehenge is, asserting the it was a place of healing, put forth by
Timothy Darvill and Geoffry Wainwright.17 Although their theories about the purpose of
Stonehenge are suspect, it is reminiscent of Geoffry of Monmouth‘s ideas about the monument.
9
Ronald Hutton, ―Under the Spell of the Druids,‖ History Today 59 no. 5, (May 2009), Academic Search
Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed March 4, 2010), par 3.
10
Ibid., par 12.
11
Mike Parker Pearson et al., ―Who was Buried at Stonehenge?‖ Antiquity 83, no. 319 (March 2009),
Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed March 5, 2010), 26.
12
Pearson et al., 26
13
Ibid., 34
14
Ibid., 36
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid., 37
17
Mike Pitts, ―A Year at Stonehenge,‖ Antiquity 83, no. 319 (March 2009), Academic Search Premier,
EBSCOhost (accessed March 8, 2010)

38
Of other significance is Anthony Johnson‘s idea that Stonehenge was built as an expression of
geometry and that using the figures of John Wood, a better understanding of why it was built is
possible.18
Throughout recorded history, we have seen several different ideas about what Stonehenge
was, as people tried to explain the mysterious monument. While it will never truly be known
why Neolithic man built such a monument, it should be understood that regardless of the time
Stonehenge will reflect the present thoughts about the past, regardless how they may change.
John W. Taylor is a student at American Military University.
Bibliography
Geoffry of Monmouth, ―Histories of the Kings of Britian.‖ Translated by Sebastian Evans (1904).
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/gem/index.htm (accessed March 3, 2010).
Hutton, Ronald. "Under the Spell of the Druids." History Today 59, no. 5 (May 2009): 14-20. Academic
Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed March 3, 2010).
Johnson, Anthony. "Solving Stonehenge." History Today 58, no. 7 (July 2008): 4-5. Academic Search
Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed March 4, 2010).
Lorentz, Melissa. ―John Aubrey.‖ EMuseum@Minnesota State University, Mankato (2008).

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/abcde/aubrey_john.html, (accessed March 2,
2010).
Pearson, Mike Parker et al. "Who was Buried at Stonehenge?." Antiquity 83, no. 319 (March 2009): 23-
39. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed March 5, 2010).
Pitts, Mike. "A year at Stonehenge." Antiquity 83, no. 319 (March 2009): 184-194. Academic Search
Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed March 8, 2010).
Pollard, Joshua. ―The Materialization of Religious Structures in the Time of Stonehenge.‖ Material
Religion 5, no. 3 (November 2009): 332-353. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed March 5,
2010).
Stuckeley, William. ―Stonehenge, A Temple Restor‘d to the British Druids.‖ 1704. Proofed and formatted
by John Bruno Hare. Sacred-texts.com, 2007. http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/str/index.htm
(accessed March 3, 2010).
United Nations. ―Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites - UNESCO World Heritage Center.‖
UNESCO World Heritage Center. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/373/ (accessed March 3, 2010).
18
Johnson, par 1

39
Reviews of Books & Articles

Acts of God: The Unnatural History of Natural In Part One, Steinberg discusses human greed
Disaster in America, 2nd Edition. Ted Steinberg. and exploitation beginning with three specific
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, ISBN 0- historical cases; the Charleston earthquake of 1886,
19-514263-2, pp. xiii+ 294. the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the 1926
Miami hurricane. Each disaster is chosen to reflect a
The root of Steinberg's thesis is perhaps the same theme which Steinberg uses to paint his portrait of
question asked by any member of the human race human greed. In Charleston, Steinberg shows a
who has witnessed the effects of exploitation of man society which has very limited understanding of
by man. In modern culture the question can be found modern science attributing the disaster and its chaos
in various forms from lyrics such as, "man hurts man, to the power of God, almost universally. The
time and time, time again, and we drown in the wake uneducated black citizens chant and pray in the town
of our power, somebody tell me why" from Amy square, while their ministers preach about the
Grant's Lead Me On to the simple discussion of judgment that has been borne on them by God. Even
whether one life has more value than multiple lives in though the town whites stay indoors, they too
the movie Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. The attribute, at least at first, the disaster to the powers of
underlying theme that Steinberg adeptly illustrates is God. It is the local leadership that redefines the
the power of greed to drive decisions which are made disaster as force of nature and seeks to keep the
with the exclusion of any humanitarian populace working to minimize the impact to the city
considerations. The text is divided into three parts economy. While the Charleston earthquake is a valid
each outlining a piece of the argument Steinberg is point and adds to the discussion, it could be
making as a whole. In Part One, "Return of the considered an atypical example in Steinberg's
Suppressed," we are allowed to define the local level argument. Steinberg uses it to give credit to the title
exploitation through the abuses of the exploited from of his book and to shape one of the subthemes of his
various historical disasters on a case-by-case basis. thesis; namely that local officials often consider the
Part Two, "Federalizing Risk," identifies the role that future of their city over the current needs of their
the federal government has played in allowing the citizens (especially their poorer citizens). But, the
local level of exploitation to not only exist but, and link between the greed of man and the impact of the
this is key to Steinberg's thesis, helps them to thrive. disaster is very tenuous and limited to a discussion of
Part Three, "Containing Calamity," describes the the abuses of whites toward blacks. While these
federal level efforts to mitigate the local level abuses are no doubt valid points they do not
exploitation. In a separate review of Steinberg's work strengthen the argument Steinberg is articulating thus
by Flippen, Flippen states, "If anything Steinberg is making this chapter a very weak addition at best, and
harsher on Washington than on the local officials and moreover, a terrible choice for an opening example.
entrepreneurs trying to promote their cities." After However, I do make note that chronologically the
contemplating each of Steinberg's arguments and his 1886 disaster might need to be first. Also that
thesis I must disagree and, if anything, Flippen's Steinberg's first example is actually in the
account is a summary level critique by an individual introduction a poignant piece about the struggle to
who hasn't bothered to contemplate on the precise save Mark Twain's childhood home and parts of
arguments Steinberg is drawing to make his thesis downtown Hannibal, Missouri at the exclusion of the
and it is merely basing the analysis on Steinberg's last poor people outside town. But, the fact that he uses
argument. However, Steinberg has three strong the introduction to allow the reader to step over the
arguments he makes to support his conclusion; he chapter on Charleston undermines its addition to the
discusses one per each of the three parts of his text. discussion.

40
The discussion of the 1906 San Francisco book, but here the exploitation is of the ignorant and
earthquake allows for Steinberg to notably interject the greedy. But, admirably, Steinberg does not draw a
some geophysical discussion of the elastic nature of line between the life of a poor person and the life of
soil that has been reclaimed and used for an affluent one. The picture Steinberg tries to paint is
development. Unlike the questionable example of that of the exploitation and he uses the discussion of
Charleston, the choice of using San Francisco is a the exploited primarily to help the reader better
good addition to his argument and his discussion of define the individuals who seek to hurt other men.
the science behind the destruction is a strength of the Take for example, Steinberg's discussion of how the
book. He uses this information to enhance his insurance industry played such a critical role in how
discussion well and by doing so allows the reader to society defined the 1906 disaster. Many people today,
not only understand the impact of the historical 1906 100 years later, still have a collective conscious
earthquake but also the impacts of a current definition of the 1906 San Francisco disaster as a
development in the San Francisco area, Redwood great fire.
Shores. While there was a fire, there is no doubt it was
Redwood Shores is a modern development, caused by the earthquake and most of the damage
envisioned in the 1970s, which is similar to the was as a result of the forces upon structures and
mission district that was leveled in the 1906 foundations by the earthquake and its aftershocks. So,
earthquake in that both are housing developments why is it remembered as a fire? Steinberg informs us
built on reclaimed land which are near known that insurance companies would only pay claims on
earthquake prone faults. A development being built damage incurred as a direct result of fire. So,
near an earthquake prone fault may seem to be the everyone had a vested interest in labeling the damage
scariest part of that statement. However the horrific done to their property as being from fire. Even
part is the reclaimed land upon which both photographs were doctored to make the damage from
developments are built and the knowledge that this the earthquake seem less extensive.
reclaimed soil will have the consistency of Jello in an Florida is another example of exploitation of the
earthquake (even modern structures built on rollers ignorant. In the 1926 Miami hurricane disaster we
are not designed to withstand that kind of twisting have a foreshadowing for the scenario around
strain). But, one has to ask the question, if this Hurricane Katrina. The story of the Miami disaster
scientific information is available then why are begins with the history of Miami beach. Originally,
people continuing to develop in these disaster prone just a stretch of beach and dunes which acted to
areas given the modern example of Redwood Shores? reduce the impact of hurricanes, it was developed in
Steinberg addresses a specific instance further along the early twentieth century and the dunes were
in the book about people remaining in an area removed and structures, like homes and hotels, put in
because it is cheap and they know the federal their place.
government will give them money after the disaster. These structures not only take the full force of
However, in the case of Redwood Shores, the winds and storm surges in a hurricane by their
developments are not cheap, so the answer in this existence, they allow storm surges to impact areas
case lies in ignorance. Regardless of the scientific further inland that would have previously been
information available to people, especially in modern protected by dunes. Steinberg uses the Miami case to
times, Steinberg discusses the ignorance of the draw up his subtheme on the impact of the local
populace when he notes that in a survey conducted in government and how a disaster is defined. He laces
1989 of residents of Santa Clara County who were this argument well throughout the book, but here he
interviewed shortly after the 1989 Loma Prieta ties up his argument when he concludes with
earthquake, "just 21% of these living near the discussion of how hurricanes were given female
Hayward fault were able to identify it and even more names to help portray them as "wild, capricious,
shocking, 57% of those interviewed perceived the fickle, whimsical, and erratic, creating a sense that
San Andreas fault to be closer." Much of Steinberg's nature was literally out of control." Part Two of the
debate circles around the exploitation of the poor, and book begins with an examination of how the federal
indeed we see examples of this in other parts of the government began to intervene in these scenarios.

41
The first example is three entrepreneurs who sought weather control and the speculative process of
to build new countries on the coral reefs off the seeding clouds, it does little to advance Steinberg's
Florida coast. To keep the reefs from being thesis. In fact, though it does preview floods which
devastated by construction the courts decided that the Steinberg will address later it is more aptly seen as a
reefs were actually property of the federal floundering fish as it fails to either accurately address
government and could not be claimed by squatting. the science behind the cloud seeding question or
Then Steinberg continues on to perhaps a bit too draw a clear picture of how it fits in the larger
much to detail the role of the structure on the impacts scheme of the story. However, with the second
of a disaster. Namely, he illustrates the lead actor role chapter Forecasting and the Fair Weather Service,
in which mobile homes play. From a discussion of Steinberg is back on track and we don‘t feel like
how the federal government tried to make building we've traveled too far from the main argument.
codes for mobile homes stricter (but failed) to the Steinberg traces the history of the National Weather
marvelous chapter called Uncle Sam: Floodplain Service from its days in the early 1900s when the
Recidivist he spotlights these structures which seem word tornado was taboo, to its present understaffed
to always be at the heart of a disaster. And if you and under budgeted state. Perhaps the hardest chapter
asked Steinberg why they seem to be at the heart of to read is the last one, Who Pays? While Steinberg,
disasters he would likely tell you it is because they will go on to answer this question in a neutral
are the main form of cheap, substandard housing manner, his discussion of the FEMA atrocities is
which is available to the poor. He expounds in detail slanted very liberal. Every conservative president is
on an example of this in his Recidivist chapter where shown to have appointed directors and leaders to
he discusses St. Charles County, Missouri. FEMA based on the apparently corrupted tradition of
Interestingly, there is a small triangle-shaped piece of political cronyism, but when he mentions Clinton's
land where the Mississippi and Missouri rivers merge appointment he is praised for "at least having some
that is quite frequently flooded. What is not disaster management experience" though he is not
surprising is that it is mainly farmland and mobile chided for appointing someone who worked under
home parks. Steinberg portrays the farmers as Clinton in Arkansas. This weakness aside, for
egotists but this is excusable as he more than adeptly Steinberg the answer to who pays is the victim of the
portrays the life of the poor people who reside in the disaster and the poor throughout the country.
trailer parks. Each time this area floods the federal Steinberg illustrates what could be termed the
government steps in to provide resources for these Treadmill of Poverty. Here, it is the poor who are
people to rebuild their homes, over and over again, usually affected in disasters; this is made clear
each time there is a new disaster. Yet when it throughout the text. But, the loop in the cycle is the
becomes apparent to even the local government that means by which the federal government pays for
this is not the best place to build even poor housing, disaster relief. Interestingly, it is through budget cuts,
these poor people are provided one final injustice. which according to Steinberg, are almost exclusively
The federal government allocates funds to move the to welfare type programs. And, if there is a weakness
parks to the landowners, not the people renting the in his thesis it would be found in the jump he makes
lots. So, the landlords who where making bucks off in his argument at this point. He states that, "…and as
these people get paid to close down their investments, long as the prevailing fear of raising taxes persists,
but the poor people have to fend for themselves. the preferred method of payment for natural disasters
From here we go back to Florida to see an example of may well be cuts in social programs" but he is
another development where an entrepreneur clears attributing this as a reply to a comment in the
out a mangrove swamp (yet another costal barrier Congressional Quarterly "…the federal government
critical to storm surge mitigation) only to discover should not go further into debt to assist victims of
that his land is often under water, and thereby not an natural disasters." Obviously, not going into debt is a
ideal place to build his dream home. different question from raising taxes and there is no
Part Three concludes Steinberg's work with a linkage provided to show that social programs are the
thorough examination of the National Weather exclusive choice for budget cuts if that is the method
Service. Though this part starts with a chapter about of choice. Though, one can follow this reasoning, the

42
validity of the argument is questionable. However, finally providing sound examples of how it all comes
this does not affect the value of the book, it is together and including reference material about
valuable as a study of history and a study of natural grammar and citing sources appropriately.
disaster in America. Steinberg writes with an easy A Short Guide first deals with the dilemma faced
style and his sources are strong. Perhaps Steinberg's when trying to write about history, particularly when
most illuminating comment comes actually on the ―[students] have often told us that they know the
page before the end, where he is discussing a heat subject, but they cannot write about it.‖ Marius and
wave in Chicago where 485 people died in the span Page takes the reader through the process of refining
of a week. The morgue was full, refrigerated trailers a topic while establishing ―principles for history
were brought in but still more room was needed, so essays.‖ A line of questioning is provided for the
crowded was the center that ambulances had to reader in a deliberate manner, attempting to provoke
repeatedly circle trying to find a place to deposit a unique line of thought concerning the topic. This is
bodies. He concludes this discussion with, "A month buffered with cautions of fallacious reasoning and the
after the hot spell ended, forty-one bodies abandoned dangers of plagiarism. From here the work moves
to the inferno remained unclaimed and were carted effortlessly into narrowing a topic, researching it, and
off to a mass grave, giving new meaning to urban identifying sources.
anomie". The section on source citation deserves some
consideration. Source citation is given particular
Julia K. Perry importance, rightly so, however issue should be taken
American Military University here. A Short Guide to Writing about History only
includes Turabian style citations, which students
required to cite in another format would see this
Marius, Richard and Melvin E. Page. A Short reference as useless. The citations themselves are
Guide to Writing About History, 7th ed. New sound, and plenty of standard examples are provided,
York: Pearson, 2010. so students using Turabian will be greatly relieved, as
A Short Guide is much smaller than the either Kate
A Short Guide to Writing about History, by Turabian‘s work or the Chicago Manual of Style. In
Richard Marius and Melvin Page, is an approachable fact, students already familiar with documenting
and relevant manual for students of history. Through sources will find little value in this section. Also
writing these editions, the authors have set out at considering reference material, a section on grammar
describing what it takes to write about history, with is provided. The usefulness of this should not be
the goal of helping the would-be writer reveal discounted. Such things as semicolons, avoiding a
something new and unique about the past. This, the passive voice, and distinguishing between written and
seventh edition, has been updated and modernized to spoken forms of words may seem a bit redundant, but
include information on obtaining primary source the authors come off clearly, without unnecessary
information from the internet, determining the information. And as in all parts of the book, this
credibility of websites, and even touches on websites section draws heavily from examples, making the
such as Wikipedia. sometimes confusing rules easier to understand.
Marius and Page both have held professor A great strength of A Short Guide to Writing
positions at Harvard and Eastern Tennessee State about History is the heavy use of examples
University respectively; and have authored numerous throughout all parts of the book. Whether it deals
works in their fields. Their long experience as writing with plagiarism and paraphrasing or making
teachers is evident throughout the text, as A Short inferences about history, Marius and Page have found
Guide reads like a mentorship between student and clear and useful examples. The book ends with three
teacher versus a procedural manual in writing appendices, each one is a writing from one of their
instruction. In this book, Marius and Page teach the students, intended to guide the reader into thinking
fundamental qualities necessary for any historical about their own specific writing assignment. As
writing first, while encouraging the reader to develop useful as those are, each section of the book contains
their own thoughts about these fundamentals, and a ―writer‘s checklist‖ which is intended as a quick

43
summary of the material to be used against the critical work already extant. Any historian, he
reader‘s paper. As an example, readers will see things asserts—except perhaps the most brilliant, short-
like, ―Is my topic clearly focused,‖ or ―Have I used sighted, or vain—would be daunted by the effort
my own words to summarize or paraphrase necessary to master any reasonable fraction of
information I find?‖ Renaissance history. Because of this ―elephant in the
Marius and Page‘s book will serve students of room,‖ there is not a large corpus of fully-informed,
history well throughout their writing. Careful completely holistic discussions of Renaissance
consideration by the authors has been paid to nearly history; and those discussions that have occurred
every aspect of historical writing, and the reader is settled upon narrowly-defined and more easily
left with a relevant and clear book which will be mastered topics. Hay‘s beginning, an overview of
remain useful for a long time. As students will Renaissance historiography, classifies previous
undoubtedly be the ones purchasing this book, when histories into four binary groupings: Rankean
book buyback comes around they would be best (political, social and economic)-historiographic;
served to hold on to this one. As their knowledge of Rankean-methodological; Cultural-historiographic;
proper citation format and grammar improves, the and Cultural-methodological.
writer‘s checklists and reference material will remain Hay tells us that limited by their scope and
relevant as well as the authors‘ advice on historical preferences, historians wrote these four types of
writing. For these reasons, this book should be a part Renaissance history independently until the 1960s,
of every history student‘s bookshelf, and one which when historians began to synthesize and integrate
they‘ll find themselves returning too often. their Renaissance-related historical perspectives. This
reviewer believes the impetus driving the change
John W Taylor came from the fresh historical perspective provided
American Military University by the Annales historians, who launched more
inclusive and analytical histories than previous
schools preferred—or were capable of producing.
Denys Hay, The Italian Renaissance in its Before leaving his Preface, one knows where
Historical Background, xii + 218 pp., 24 ill., 2 Hay stands with regard to his subject and its history.
maps Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, In quick succession, he explicitly positions himself
1961. within the literature by claiming variance with
Burckhardt‘s transitionalism while mentioning John
Denys Hay‘s book appeared in the early 1960s, Addington Symonds‘ Renaissance in Italy with
when social history and its proponents had begun to approbation. Hay asserts the possibility that a single
transform western historiography. History, general history of the period is possible, since ―…the
particularly medieval and ―early modern history,‖ Renaissance is the last epoch when one man can hope
was still much influenced by document-centric to have a direct view of most of the sources. … (as)
inquiry, still insisting on defining unique periods, and … I here try to view the history of Italy from the
still tending to think in terms of national contexts. early fourteenth century to the mid-sixteenth.‖ (x-xii)
Not many years later, postmodernism‘s relativism Hay then introduces his subject as one should—
would storm and rage against the ―progress view of who intends to expound upon a period known for its
history‖ which, in Renaissance terms, meant love of Aristotelian and Platonic thought—he sets
Burckhardt‘s book, Civilization of the Renaissance in forth his axioms and defines his terms. His three
Italy. It is during this interregnum that Hay writes his axioms are: there was a ―Renaissance‖ between the
book, purposely intending ―to provoke an unbiased approximate years 1350 and 1700; this period began
and fresh appeal of a phase in Italian and European in Italy and later affected the rest of Europe; and, the
history which has, more than most such ‗periods‘, period is identifiable through a ―difference in the
suffered from traditional and stereotyped treatment, style of living between the Renaissance and both
above all by being dealt with as static and solid.‖ what came before and what came after.‖ (1-2, 7)
Hay acknowledges that previous historians have In the subsequent chapters, Hay sets about
suffered because of the large volume of detailed providing evidence supporting the axioms he asserts.

44
His chosen method is to integrate the Renaissance‘s Renaissance. He sets himself a definition for the
cultural history with the long extant political and history of Italy that includes the way a country
social histories of Italy, drawing no distinction acquires self-consciousness; the play of political,
between Italian history and the history of the social, cultural interests within the boundaries formed
Renaissance in Italy. He acknowledges the difficulty by language and geography; and, its relations with its
of synchronizing the two, labeling the period as ―one neighbors. Beginning with the physical environment,
of those paradoxical epochs where cultural change Hay briefly describes the geography of Italy that, in a
seems to be out of step with economic change.‖ literal sense, made Italy. He describes the insulating
Interestingly, he also recognizes the existence of a effect of the Alps, whose protective arch around the
hidden history related to the commoner; and when he northern plain moderated the climate, slowed
asserts that the defining cultural innovations that overland invaders, and formed a linguistic barrier;
changed the Europeans‘ styles of living were formed and of the seas, whose unpredictability and dangers
―in the castle rather than the cottage,‖ and required deterred all but the hardiest and most determined of
centuries to finally disperse to ―simple men and outsiders from visiting the peninsula for more than
women,‖ he foresees the need for, and predicts the trade. Conversely, Hay asserts that the Apennine
rise of, feminist and gendered Renaissance history. ridge down the length of Italy worked against
Hay then turns to the conceptualization and unifying forces by preventing efficient internal
emergence of the term ―Renaissance‖ and the validity communications between the two sides of the
of the notion of its existence. He asserts the existence peninsula. Based on these considerations, hay posits
of the Renaissance, as a definable period of history, that the geography created forces that protected the
based on the spread of new styles in art, architecture, peninsula from external tampering, while insuring
letters, and politics within Italy; and, the derivative that local socio-cultural dynamics were never
and relatively rapid adoption of these styles completely static.
throughout Europe. At the same time, however, he is By the fourteenth century, according to Hay,
in critical disagreement with those historians who Italy had its first chance to go her own way since the
describe the Renaissance as a transitional period eleventh century. Along with the protections afforded
between and dark medieval world and the modern by geography, pressures from Emperors, Popes and
era. outsiders were diminished by narcissistic concerns,
In particular, Hay uses the following points as which further contributed to ―less inhibited political
evidence for accepting Renaissance as a period sui development‖ (59) that facilitated a series of cultural
generis and dismissing the idea of its transitional developments. The resulting dynamism changed the
role. Politically, the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries forces, ambitions, or fears that drove towns and great
were an age of ubiquitous monarchy and the ideology lords to shift from the papal and imperial towards the
of divine right for king and pope. The preceding era regional.
was definable by the prominence of landed magnates At the local level, the fourteenth century saw
and strongmen who took titles such as Duke, styles of governance change from those of free
Landgrave, and Count; and, the lack of a supporting communes to that of the signoria which invested
political ideology. Economically and socially, the power in a man and his extended family, a mostly
beginning of the renaissance saw the diminishing of kinship-based structure reminiscent of early roman
land-based-wealth in favor of a moneyed economy. familial client-patron groupings. The presence of
The primary source of religious, intellectual, literary these structures in Italian towns produced an insecure
and artistic standards shifted away from the Christian balance of parties formed as families grouped
clergy and curia towards the common or secular man themselves into mutually supporting factions through
in the ―lay direction of Christian spirituality‖ marriage and commercial alliances. The principal
supported by the increased use of vernacular weapons used in struggles for dominance between the
languages which decreased the sacral monopoly on factions drew on roman traditions of proscribing
written learning. families and seizing their property. These structures
Hay then addresses the political and cultural were enlarged and empowered by popular support
climate in Italy that contributed to the birth of the and the strength of commerce and industry. The

45
oligarchs excluded attempts by the traditional ideals tended to simplify and gentle the extremes of
nobility to impose rule and Florence, Lucca and Italian political life while, at the same time, enriching
Siena became republics of a sort. its cultural life.
However, the political dynamism was partially As mentioned, the Florence that emerges as the
fueled by negative economic and demographic focus of change in the early fifteenth century is
factors. From the late thirteenth century, Italy was dominated by oligarchic merchant families—power
faced with an economic recession, including being vested in the industrial and mercantile guilds.
significant numbers of bankruptcies and famine that The resulting government promulgated some
were certainly exacerbated, if not caused, by the reasonable and forward-thinking fiscal policies that
severe disease outbreaks that reduced the population kept the populace reasonably content for years. Hay
available for agriculture and industry, and suppressed asserts that the resulting stability and prosperity
transportation and trade. Urban Italy and especially allowed the gathering of the raw materials that
Tuscany was seriously affected by the plagues. produced the Renaissance: the collection of
Nevertheless, a recovery was under way in Italy by manuscripts; and, the development of architecture,
the late fifteenth century, after an identifiable period painting, sculpture and literary methods, style and
of serious strife in terms of conflict, confusion and content—all of which were pursued in search of
destitution. moral guidance and inspiration.
After thus considering the political sphere, Hay The Florentine paradigm Hay describes centers
turns to discussing the cultural development of the around an accommodation with mortality based more
Renaissance through newly conceived educational on the Roman euphoria derived from the well-lived
programs and new attitudes about literature and life, watched over by gods, not so different from
morality. He points out that, intellectually, the men, rather than from the medieval Christological
fourteenth century was still a time of individuals. Hay model that exalted worldly abnegation and
names Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio to illustrate his renunciation. In this, Hay acknowledges his
point—granting Dante the role of summing up the agreement with Burckhardt‘s views concerning the
past; to Petrarch, that of defining an image for a expression of sentiment in the Renaissance through a
European future; and, to Boccaccio, of defining the new attitude towards education, the enthronement of
path (Latin and vernacular language) and the sources secular wisdom, the favoring of almost republican
(Roman, rather than Grecian or Germanic) through principles in politics, and a revival of artistic
which that image could be made real. literature. At the same time, Hay voices disagreement
Petrarch‘s paradigm describes a humanity trained with Burckhardt‘s assertion that the physical sciences
to live a planned life that was expansive, beautiful, had a parallel boost in the Renaissance; pointing out
and pleasing to God, as opposed to a life limited by that, excepting new ideas in optics and perspective—
the simple training that produced tradesmen, clerks both related to developments in art and architecture—
and clerics. The use of a common, vernacular little scientific progress occurred.
linguistic medium was meant to expand the number The initial era of the Renaissance in Italy wound
of people able to receive the necessary instruction; down in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth
that was to be drawn from those classical sources centuries while Italian culture begins its expansion
which wise men believed to provide more appropriate into the rest of Europe. Within Italy, the political
guidance than was found in traditional western move towards republicanism had shifted and, by the
teachings, in spite of its variance to the Christian end of the fifteenth century, Florence had gotten itself
embrace of renunciation. a Prince, now the prevailing form of governance in
Hay then directs his view beyond the turbulent Italy. Hay points out that the humanist education
political events cresting between 1375 and 1385 to many of the princes had received affected their
consider the post-Petrarch, post-Boccaccio choice of servants. Humanist-trained men made
environment. He indicates that while men of letters excellent administrators and diplomats and, through
became more numerous and more visible, they were the favor of their noble former-students, they became
less skilled—unlike the increasing numbers of such in many Italian principalities. This included the
highly-skilled artisans. The spread of these classical Papal States where, by the early sixteenth century,

46
humanists came to dominate the papal entourage. the church provided major venues for cross-
Under their influence, Rome renewed its reputation pollination between Italians and visiting prelates,
as a center of art, literature and scholarship—which diplomats and counselors from the North. Thirdly
had not been true since classical times. By the end of and, to Hay, most importantly, Italy‘s shift towards
Hay‘s first age of the Renaissance in Italy, the royalist forms of governance made Italy more
cultural and intellectual power it had engendered had comfortable to the ambassadors and visitors from the
become subject to pope and prince; and in Florence, nobility-ruled North. So the transmission to the north
it had been suborned by the autocrat to flatter the was, to Hay, accomplished by Italian scholars and
person of, and to politically protect the position of, its artists traveling north, by northern visitors to Italy,
prince. Hay laments that while the cultural unity of and by the physical movement of works of art and
Italy was assured through the common styles in art books.
and literature, the overall tone of word and image had The transmission of ideas tended to homogenize
lost its revolutionary verve and become more plebian Europe in a final ―courtly phase‖ of the Italian
than patrician. Renaissance which centered around an education in
After thus tracing the flowering of the Latin; the production of realistic art tempered with
Renaissance in Italy, Hay turns his attention to the heroic symbolism; and, an ideological emphasis on
expansion of the new modes of thought and practical living in mortality rather that a pining for
expression into the rest of Europe. He describes the hereafter. This uniformity eventually broke down
Italy‘s offering to Europe as a mode of life revitalized at the start of the eighteenth century when an
by a turning away from Christianity‘s asceticism, a industrial economy overtook the agrarian;
common educational paradigm based on the Latin nationalism overtook autocratic allegiances; and, the
texts, and artistic developments enriched by the physical sciences supplanted philosophy as the
classical Latin symbolism and mythology. As accepted model for cognition.
evidence, he discusses the rising prominence of men While the general historical community lauded
of law, the establishment of schools, and the Hay for a satisfactory treatment in a small book,
standardization of English and French vernaculars some objections to his work came from Art
that arose from the universities. Historians. From their prospective, Hay failed to
Nevertheless, Hay is careful to point out that it is devote enough attention to art, as opposed to politics
not until the sixteenth century that we really see the and literature, and to art beyond the boundaries of
Renaissance take root in Central and northern Florence, particularly to the detriment of Padua,
Europe. He hesitates to conjecture at to the reasons Venice and Milan. Art historians also took exception
for the delay but believes that differences in social to Hay extending the Renaissance to about 1700,
structures between Italy and the North must have had through the age they label as the Baroque. Hay is
some resistive quality. criticized less about his assertions than for failing to
In the name of maintaining a reasonable scope, mention particular examples important to these other
Hay also limits his northern study to events in France reviewers. This reviewer enjoyed receiving Hay‘s
and England. He first addresses Petrarch‘s presence mentoring hand.
in Avignon, which likely exposed France to the early
influences of the Renaissance. He also attributes David G. Terrell
English exposure to early Renaissance concepts American Military University
through Chaucer‘s familiarity with Petrarch, which
included a possible meeting, and with Boccaccio‘s
writings. Secondly, Hay asserts that the Councils of

47
Communications
This space will be used to publish feedback and
academic discussion.
--DGT
© The Quill and Musket: An Online University Historical Research Society, 2010, except where otherwise noted, Q&M content
is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. For permission
to reprint under terms outside the license, contact the Editor-in-Chief at quillandmusket@gmail.com.

The Quill and Musket (v01n01) Complete

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Quill and Musket (v01n01) Complete

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Quill and Musket

VOLUME 1 – NUMBER 1 – DECEMBER 2010

Reviews of Books and Articles

© The Quill and Musket: An Online University Historical Research Society,

Comments and questions are always welcome.

Where we are going,

Vanilla Fudge Symphony, by Carl DeAngelis

Who Were the Danaan?

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

—. The Tribes. Jerusalem: Russell-Davis, 2004.

Easton, M.G. Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Knoxville: Cosimo Classics, 2006.

Hamilton, Edith. Mythology. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1969.

Rose, Herbert Jennings. A Handbook of Greek Mythology. London: Routledge, 2005.

Wilkes, Anna. Ireland: Ur of the Chaldees. Charleston, SC: Bibliobazaar, 2009.

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

Liberty, Enlightenment, and Classical Republican Virtues

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Penning of Gettysburg:

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

James D. Barlow is a student at American Military University.

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

Adkin, Mark. The Gettysburg Companion. Mechanicsburg: Stackpole Books, 2008.

Desjardin, Thomas A. These Honored Dead. Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 2003.

Pollard, E. A. The Lost Cause. Avenel: Gramercy Books, 1994.

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Leadership Foundations of George Washington

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

Figure 1. An example of George Washington‘s ‗Hub and Wheel‘ organizational model.

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. http://www.m-w.com

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

Stonehenge‘s Fluid Past

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

John W. Taylor is a student at American Military University.

Lorentz, Melissa. ―John Aubrey.‖ EMuseum@Minnesota State University, Mankato (2008).

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

Reviews of Books & Articles

The Quill and Musket, December 2010

The Quill and Musket, December 2010