Florida’s Spanish borderland was the result of over two hundred and fifty years of cooperation and contention among Indians, Spain, Britain, the United States and Africans who lived with them all. The borderland was shaped by the differing cultural definitions of color and how color affected laws about manumission, miscegenation, legitimacy, citizenship or degrees of rights for free people of color and to some extent for slaves themselves. The borderland did not vanish after the United States acquired Florida. It persisted in three ways. First, in advocacy for the former Spanish system by some white patriarchs who fathered mixed race families. Free blacks and people of color also had an interest in maintaining their property and liberties. Second, Indians in Florida and escaped slaves who allied with them well knew how whites treated non-whites, and they fiercely resisted white authority. Third, the United States reacted to both of these in the context of fear that further slave revolutions in the Caribbean, colluding with the Indian-African alliance in Florida, might destabilize slavery in the United States. In the new Florida Territory, Spanish era practices based on a less severe construction of race were soon quashed, but not without the articulate objections of a cadre of whites. Led by Zephaniah Kingsley, their arguments challenged the strict biracial system of the United States. This was a component of the persistent borderland, but their arguments were, in the end, also in the service of slavery and white patriarchy. The persistent border included this ongoing resistance to strict biracialism, but it was even more distinct because of the Indian-African resistance to the United States that was not in the service of slavery. To defend slavery and whiteness, the United States sent thousands of its military, millions of its treasure, and spent years to subdue the Indian-African alliance and to make Florida and its long shorelines a barrier to protect whiteness and patriarchy in the Deep South.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the determinants of interstate migration in the United States (US) from the perspective of institutions and agglomeration economies. Dependent variables used in this study relate to the net interstate migration of four distinct demographic groups; migrants as whole (MIGRATE), migrants aged between 22 and 39 years of age (MIGR2239), migrants aged between 22 and 39 years of age educated to the undergraduate level (BAMIGR), and migrants aged between 22 and 39 years of age educated to the postgraduate level (MAMIGR). Independent variables proxying for institutions are sourced from both the Mercatus Center and the Fraser Institute. The Mercatus Center¡¦s economic freedom index (the MEFI) and overall freedom index (MOFI) represent the relative economic and overall freedoms enjoyed by residents of the 50 states. The Fraser Institute¡¦s economic freedom index (FIEFI) also measures economic freedom. Agglomeration economy proxies relate to both creativity levels in state, measured by Richard Florida¡¦s creativity index (SCI06), and education levels, measured by the percentage of a state¡¦s population educated to the undergraduate level (EDUBPLUS). It is well established that crime and climate are factors that influence migration and these variables are controlled for in this study by using murder rates in the largest in-state city (MURDER) and the average annual number of heating degree days (HDD) in a state. This study uses multivariate linear regression to analyze the variables and the findings emphasize the importance of both institutions and agglomeration economies in explaining the migration decisions of US citizens. Institutions, proxied for by greater economic and overall freedoms, are shown to be more important than agglomeration economies for migrants across a broad range of demographic. Institutions are less important, however, for younger, better educated migrants who reveal preferences for good agglomeration economies and particularly creativity.

Florida’s Spanish borderland was the result of over two hundred and fifty years of cooperation and contention among Indians, Spain, Britain, the United States and Africans who lived with them all. The borderland was shaped by the differing cultural definitions of color and how color affected laws about manumission, miscegenation, legitimacy, citizenship or degrees of rights for free people of color and to some extent for slaves themselves. The borderland did not vanish after the United States acquired Florida. It persisted in three ways. First, in advocacy for the former Spanish system by some white patriarchs who fathered mixed race families. Free blacks and people of color also had an interest in maintaining their property and liberties. Second, Indians in Florida and escaped slaves who allied with them well knew how whites treated non-whites, and they fiercely resisted white authority. Third, the United States reacted to both of these in the context of fear that further slave revolutions in the Caribbean, colluding with the Indian-African alliance in Florida, might destabilize slavery in the United States. In the new Florida Territory, Spanish era practices based on a less severe construction of race were soon quashed, but not without the articulate objections of a cadre of whites. Led by Zephaniah Kingsley, their arguments challenged the strict biracial system of the United States. This was a component of the persistent borderland, but their arguments were, in the end, also in the service of slavery and white patriarchy. The persistent border included this ongoing resistance to strict biracialism, but it was even more distinct because of the Indian-African resistance to the United States that was not in the service of slavery. To defend slavery and whiteness, the United States sent thousands of its military, millions of its treasure, and spent years to subdue the Indian-African alliance and to make Florida and its long shorelines a barrier to protect whiteness and patriarchy in the Deep South.

This dissertation mainly discussed the investigation of three different Formosan soft corals, Xenia florida, Cespitularia sp., and Asterospicularia laurae, and also the coral medicinal herb Kadsura philippinensis. Their EtOAc extracts were investigated by chromatography. Forty-three natural products, including twenty- five new natural products were isolated and parts of their biological activities were studied. Xeniolactone A (1), a new skeleton natural product, and xeniolactones B and C (2, 3) were isolated from Xenia florida, together with eight known compounds florlide C, 9-deoxyxeniolide B, xeniolide H, florlides A and G, floridicin, blumiolide B and xeniaoxolane . In the research of soft coral Cespitularia sp.,eighe new compounds inculding four cespitularane-type diterpenes (4

Thesis (M.S.)--University of West Florida, 2007. / Title from title page of source document. Document formatted into pages; contains 41 pages. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of West Florida, 2007. / Title from title page of source document. Document formatted into pages; contains 39 pages. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of West Florida, 2007. / Title from title page of source document. Document formatted into pages; contains 191 pages. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of West Florida, 2007. / Title from title page of source document. Document formatted into pages; contains 77 pages. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of West Florida, 2007. / Title from title page of source document. Document formatted into pages; contains 136 pages. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of West Florida, 2007. / Title from title page of source document. Document formatted into pages; contains 117 pages. Includes bibliographical references.