Master of Arts (MA), Bowling Green State University, 2014, History

Recently scholars have begun to reassess the importance of monetary imagery as a reflection of subjects integral to past societies. This study looks at the vignettes featured on the Treasury notes issued by the Confederate States of America, and attempts to determine their cultural and historical significances. Using Grover Criswells seventy defined varieties of Confederate bills, as well as correspondences and records from the Confederate Treasury Department, I explore how these pictures promoted the diverse Southern causes of agriculture, patriotism, and victory. Further, besides advocating these aforementioned concepts, I demonstrate that early wartime representations acted as indicators of Confederate citizens advanced intelligence and practical self-sufficiency. In contrast to those who argue that the C.S.A.'s tableaus functioned as proslavery propaganda, I argue that they reflected a broader set of ideals among Southern Civil War society. By statistically testing the frequency that slave scenes were employed, I directly challenge these allegations and find that they represent a very small portion of the aggregate iconography. Instead, my analysis shows that several other vignette-types- namely commercial and mythological figures - were more regularly utilized. However, in October of 1862, these metaphoric depictions disappeared from circulation and the diversity of monetary images started to fade. In turn, realistic portraits of Confederate leaders and Southern capitol buildings dominated C.S.A. scrip with little room for variation. While this shift may have been due to a concerted effort to decrease counterfeits and conserve resources, I suggest that it was actually intended to convey a more overt sense of nationalism after Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation.

Committee: Scott Martin Dr. (Advisor); Ruth Herndon Dr. (Committee Member) Subjects: History

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2009, Political Science

When do wartime events cause state leaders to change their political or military approach to a war, or try to end it? This study answers this question by focusing on leaders' beliefs about how war advances their political aims and the changes those beliefs undergo, and the role of emotions in motivating or suppressing those changes. These key beliefs are conceptualized as Theories of Victory, and three key types of theory of victory—oriented toward demonstrating capability, wearying their opponent, or directly acquiring the aims—are identified. These types are used to explain how leaders interpret wartime events and, if they conclude their approach has failed, what further options (if any) will seem plausible. The motivation to learn associated with anxiety (produced by novel bad news) and the suppression of learning associated with anger and contentedness (produced by familiar bad news and good news) are used to explain when particular series of events lead to these key changes. Three cases are used to test the theory—the Winter War (Finland-USSR 1939-1940), the Pacific War (US-Japan 1941-1945) and the Battle of France (France-Germany 1940).

Committee: Richard Herrmann PhD (Committee Chair); Daniel Verdier PhD (Committee Member); Theodore Hopf PhD (Committee Member) Subjects: International Relations

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2006, Political Science

Though there is relatively little work on how states manage victory, the conventional wisdom in international relations scholarship is that moderation in victory is the only approach that will provide post-war stability. That is, defeated states should not be restricted in the post-war era, nor should the gains made by victors be too large. Otherwise, post-war stability is jeopardized. I argue that restrictive war-ending settlements tend to provide postwar stability when there is a large postwar gap in capabilities favoring the victors and those states actively enforce the settlement. When these conditions hold, postwar stability, defined as no or only minor alterations to the settlement attempted by the vanquished nation, can follow two pathways. The first is the acceptance of the restrictive settlement by the vanquished based on simple coercion, or where the defeated state is unable to challenge the settlement and thus grudgingly endures its treatment as long as the power gap favors the victors. The second, coercion plus socialization, is acceptance of the restrictive settlement by the defeated state based on legitimacy, or where the defeated state is eventually socialized to the settlement such that it no longer desires to challenge or alter the settlement even if the opportunity arises to do so. When the gap in capabilities between the victors and vanquished is not large or cannot be perpetuated because of lack of enforcement, a less restrictive settlement is more likely to provide postwar stability. To test my arguments against the conventional wisdom, I conduct a comparative analysis of all great power war-ending settlements since 1815. I find that restrictive settlements do in fact lead to postwar stability at least as often as lenient ones. Moreover, the comparative analysis demonstrates that the coercion and coercion plus socialization both enjoy strong support. To further probe the coercion plus socialization model, I conduct an in-depth case study of West (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Randall Schweller (Advisor) Subjects:

BA, Oberlin College, 2008, Environmental Studies

Many young people today do not learn to cook, or eat nutritious, regular meals together with their families, or go shopping for produce. Because of this, they do not have the opportunity to develop any real appreciation for food. To make matters worse, many public schools fail to teach students anything at all about the complex environmental and cultural history of food – how it is produced, preserved, prepared, and distributed. At the same time, schools serve lunches that often lack nutritional value. In this thesis, I argue the importance of giving students the opportunity to connect to food through school gardens and food education programs in schools. First, I trace the history and philosophical origins of school gardens, focusing particularly on the growth of school gardens and relevant literature at the turn of the 20th century and during the two world wars. I then examine the decline and subsequent rise of school gardens during the latter half of the 20th century and analyze two examples of current school gardening and food education programs in the United States: the Edible Schoolyard in Berkeley, California, and the Burlington School Food Project in Burlington, Vermont. Finally, I consider the feasibility of incorporating school gardens and food education into classrooms in Oberlin's schools, and suggest that educating students to be “food literate” is one critical step towards addressing complex problems that we face today, including climate change and obesity.

Committee: Thomas Newlin (Advisor); Roger Laushman (Other); Cheryl Wolfe (Other); Brad Masi (Other) Subjects: Education; Education History; History; Horticulture