On the Battlefront: Canadian Soldiers,an Imperial War,and America's National Pastime

“The moment our men get out of the trenches they begin to play baseball… .” ¹ 1. Coningsby Dawson, Living Bayonets: A Record of the Last Push (New York: John Lane Co., 1919), 129.

—Lieutenant Coningsby Dawson, an officer in the Canadian

Expeditionary Force during the First World War

The Great War is credited by some historians for giving direction to Canadian nationalism. Success on the battlefields provided many citizens with patriotic pride, as well as a sense of brotherhood as Canadian troops fought alongside the British in an imperial struggle. Despite an environment that favoured nationalism and imperialism, Canadian soldiers embraced America's national pastime. For many of the rank and file, baseball was an important part of their war experience. The commanding officers' support for sport, however, was essential to baseball's existence in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces. Despite the enjoyment baseball brought soldiers, a handful of officers in the military's high command were apprehensive about sport's rising status. By 1917, after years of uncertainty about how to incorporate baseball into the soldiers' training regimen, the military could no longer ignore the need and role for sport in military life. Perhaps spurred by American entry into the conflict, the CEF issued a report that officially authorized baseball and like games.     

George V and Repulicanism, 1917-1919

This article is a study of the British monarchy's reaction towhat it saw as a republican threat at the end of the First WorldWar. It challenges the widely received view that the most importantrepublican moment in modern British history was in the early1870s. Written from previously unused material in the RoyalArchives, it chronicles the emergence of Palace worries aboutthe rise of militant socialism, which the royal family equatedwith republicanism; and it illuminates the tactics designedby the King and his advisers to take the republican edge offthe labour movement and to deal with the immediate social andeconomic crisis. Lord Esher summed up Palace policy in the phrase‘the "democratization" of the monarchy’. In practice,this meant expanding the royal family's social and charitablepurposes to ensure the Crown's survival. The policy would havean enduring influence on royal thinking and behaviour. ¹ This article was written for the Visiting Fellows' Colloquium,All Souls College, Oxford. It expands a line of argument thatwas put more tentatively and with far less documentation inChapter 6 of my book Royal Bounty: The Making of a Welfare Monarchy(London, 1995). By gracious permission of Her Majesty the Queen,I have been able to make use of material from the Royal Archivesat Windsor.     

Clio's Southern Sisters: Interviews with Leaders of the Southern Association for Women Historians

In the 1950s, the outstanding historian Anne Scott was finishinggraduate school and looking for a job. Oscar Handlin sent herto the University of North Carolina. She said, "When I got downhere, I was told that the University of North Carolina had neverhired a woman in the history department, and never would." FletcherGreen, the chair, told Oscar Handlin, "Could you send me a youngman to teach American history next year?" Handlin replied, "I’vealready sent someone to Chapel Hill, Fletcher." The departmentrelented and let her teach four sections of the introductorycourse, but did     

Our Schools,Our Country: American Evangelicals,Public Schools,and the Supreme Court Decisions of 1962 and 1963

American evangelicals have long maintained a tense and paradoxical relationship to mainstream American culture. This article explores the effect of the 1962 and 1963 United States Supreme Court school decisions on that perennial tension. Unlike many conservatives, conservative evangelicals greeted the court's 1962 Engel decision to ban state‐written prayer in public schools with cautious approval; however, evangelicals saw the 1963 Schempp decision to ban Bible reading and the Lord's Prayer from those schools as an affront. The unique relationship between evangelical belief and America's public school system forced evangelicals to reconsider their special place in both schools and society as a whole. They concluded with surprising unanimity that those school decisions had done more than forced evangelical belief out of America's public schools; the decisions had pushed evangelicals themselves out of America's mainstream culture.