Military Assistance, the development and training of capacity and capability of foreign security forces, has largely been ignored by the research community, including the security studies research community. Military Assistance, as a tool, creates the possibility of both positive and negative outcomes for both recipient and providing nations, and as such it should be examined within the broader framework of international relations, with regards to the projection and perception of power. This research is timely and important, since Military Assistance is an actively pursued security solution within the international system. With the growth of Military Assistance missions around the world, from Iraq and Afghanistan to the Central African Republic, understanding the dynamics that can create or facilitate successful Military Assistance and its broader implications has become more critical. As a tool of United States foreign policy, Military Assistance missions extend United States power, while at the same time minimizing the risk of protracted United States military involvement. Consequently, reliance on Military Assistance has become the preferred method for pursuing strategic military direction and the development of strategic alliances. This will be explored in two case studies: South Korea and Vietnam. This research study seeks to recognize and define the dynamics of successful Military Assistance missions: more specifically, by defining its role in possibly linking the development of an army and a broader strategic alliance between states. I trace how the creation of capacities and capabilities establishes a more integrated relationship between two states, and acts as a prime process to extrapolate and test an applicable theory that can be used in multiple contexts. The goal of this research is a better understanding of Military Assistance as an international relations tool which can further strategic alliances and American Grand Strategy.

No description available.

Born in 1786, Edward Coles came of age as Americans attempted to define this nation's character. Convinced of his generation's responsibility to ensure the survival of the republican experiment, Coles emerged from the College of William and Mary determined to assume a position of authority. Unlike most of his contemporaries, however, he left Williamsburg persuaded that slavery was morally and ideologically wrong. Burdened by a conflict between a sense of duty to serve his nation and a commitment to eliminate slavery, Coles embarked on a public career that took him from the seat of national power in Washington City, to the rustic frontier of Illinois, and, finally, to the cosmopolitan city of Philadelphia.;Throughout his journey, his antislavery sensibility forced him to redefine his claim to authority. While serving as President James Madison's private secretary, Cole's participated in a national political culture that utilized elite networks to accomplish political business. Although he exercised considerable influence, he remained troubled by the slavery issue and decided to immigrate to the frontier, where he emancipated his enslaved property. to Coles's dismay, Illinois' commitment to freedom proved to be illusory. as he attempted to transform, his environment, he adopted democratic political tactics and, as governor, employed them to defeat a movement to legalize slavery. Those efforts, however, left him disillusioned with public service. Unwilling to accept his role as a displaced frontier elite, Coles moved east and settled in Philadelphia. There, the political crisis of the 1850s drew him back into the public arena. Determined to prevent a sectional crisis, Coles represented himself as the authority on the legacy of the American Revolution. Highlighting his intimate relationship with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, he attempted to recast the founding generation as antislavery statesmen who would have been outraged by the political developments of the antebellum era. Tragically, his efforts were unsuccessful and the nation plunged into civil war.;Edward Coles was emblematic of a generation of Americans who were alarmed by the democratic changes surrounding them, yet unable to prevent the erosion of elite authority those transformations engendered.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Much has been written about America’s entry into World War II. However, little attention has been given to the war’s effects on the social and economic lives of the people of East Tennessee who both benefited and suffered from the presence of many wartime facilities and industries. World War II also affected those civilians living and working on the home front. While its men had to fight in foreign lands, the region had to deal with food, housing, and labor shortages, the changing roles of women and African-Americans, and even the presence of enemy prisoners of war. This paper intends to show how the people of East Tennessee both benefitted and suffered as a result of America’s entry into World War II. It will detail the role of local industries that in most cases changed from producing consumer goods to war material. Attention will be paid to key wartime facilities such as Oak Ridge Laboratory and Eastman Chemical. In addition, it will examine the effect that the war had on those East Tennesseans who served overseas and returned home to their families and communities changed forever. This paper will also show the extent to which East Tennessee women and African-Americans contributed to and were affected by the war effort as well as how their roles in society would be changed because of it. The use of enemy prisoners of war as labor on the home front will be elaborated upon as well. By examining these themes and topics, our citizenry today will have a better understanding of the sacrifices made to win World War II.

This dissertation is a study of the life and career of Benjamin Stoddert Ewell (1810-1894). A grandson of the first United States Secretary of the Navy, Benjamin Stoddert, and son of an old Virginia family, Benjamin Ewell grew up in Prince William County, Virginia, during the early days of the American republic. Although educated at the United States Military Academy, Ewell rejected the military life for a career in college teaching and administration. After holding faculty chairs at Hampden-Sydney College (1839-46) and Washington College (1846-48), Ewell became, in 1848, president pro-tempore of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. For the next forty years he served William and Mary as professor (1849-54) and president (1848-49; 1854-88).;Ewell's years were troubled ones for the colonial college. In the ante-bellum period, financial difficulties and a dearth of students--problems common to almost all nineteenth century college presidents--constantly threatened the college's existence. In 1859 fire destroyed the main building, and Ewell faced the difficult problems of rebuilding. During the Civil War, in which Colonel Ewell served as adjutant to Confederate general Joseph E. Johnston, the college was burned again, this time by Union troops. Rebuilding after 1865 depleted the school's endowment, and its location in the inaccessible and economically depressed Tidewater region of Virginia discouraged student enrollment. Ewell's efforts to obtain reparations from Congress came to naught. In 1882, William and Mary was forced to close.;Ewell always considered the college a living monument to Virginia's years of glory during the period of the Revolution and Early Republic. On the basis of this belief, his dedication to William and Mary was so complete that his biography necessarily becomes a history of the college. In all its adversity Ewell kept the faith that William and Mary would survive and fought unrelentingly to prevent the institution's removal from Williamsburg. After William and Mary closed, he remained as president to protect both its charter and its buildings. Finally, in 1888, he led a successful campaign to make the colonial college a normal school for white males, thereby assuring its continued existence, its financial stability, and its location in Virginia's colonial capital.

This study examines Confederate military operations in Virginia from February 17-May 31, 1862, focusing specifically on the role of Joseph E. Johnston as commander of the Department of Northern Virginia. It includes a detailed consideration of Confederate grand strategy, Johnston's withdrawal from the Potomac River, the redeployment of the army to Yorktown, the siege of Yorktown, and the Battles of Williamsburg and Seven Pines.;In February, 1862, following the surrender of Fort Donelson, President Jefferson Davis reoriented strategy in Virginia from a defense of the frontiers to a closer defense of Richmond; he also recalled General Robert E. Lee from South Carolina to coordinate that defense. But the strategic concepts of Davis, Lee, and Joseph Johnston (the senior field commander in Virginia) often differed a great deal, leading to confrontation and discord.;This study concentrates on following Johnston's point of view during the campaign, especially on his role as a field army commander. The conclusion suggests that Johnston was a superior strategist, administrator, and operational commander, but suffered from serious deficiencies as in tactical supervision of his own subordinates and an inability to deal tactfully with his superiors.