Reaching Lifelong Goals

Labor Relations – Authorized by the Secretary of War:
The Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen and its Unique Contribution to the Great War Effort 1916-1918

Manned powered flight was barely a decade old when it was recruited as a weapon of war. The construction of these early aero planes relied on wood and fabric. The Pacific Northwest provided the best possible wood for their framework and spars, the Sitka spruce. Labor unrest in the timber industry, spurred on by the radical union, the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), also known as the “Wobblies”, severely impeded production of the much needed spruce. Numerous strikes and work stoppages in 1916-17 were the trademark tactics of the Wobblie organizers.

With the goal of meeting quotas for spruce lumber for the fledgling aircraft industry in the U.S., as well as Allied needs in Europe for aircraft for the Great War, the U.S. Army sent Brice P. Disque on a covert fact finding mission to the Pacific Northwest to assess the situation. Under Lt. Colonel Disque’s recommendation, the formation of a new union, including both the timber workers and the employers, was authorized by the Secretary of War, Newton Baker. The Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen (LLLL) was operated by the U.S. Army, with the intent of breaking the radical Wobblie hold on the industry. With the entry of the United States into World War I in April 1917, a new patriotic fervor swept over the nation and the Wobblies “transformed in the public mind from a nuisance into a subversive menace.”^[1] Colonel Disque capitalized on this wave of negative sentiment and patriotic fervor with the LLLL membership oath and official publications produced for the rank and file. The U.S. Army’s union was successful in breaking the hold of the radical Wobblies in the Northwest while achieving labor’s goals through negotiations from a position of mixed governmental power and national pride.

The formation of the government sponsored union for the specific purpose of breaking the hold of the Industrial Workers of the World in the forests of the Pacific Northwest is unique in the history of labor relations. The controversy surrounding the Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen combined the nation’s fervor of patriotism and the U.S. Government’s requirements for the war effort. The vitriolic rhetoric surrounding these issues from 1917-1919 continued to affect the historiography published in the decades following the end of the Great War.

“Spruce for the Air – Fir for the Sea”

The importance of the Pacific Northwest lumber industry to the world-wide war effort predates the entry of the United States into World War I. The Sitka spruce, Picea sitchensis, is a timber resource that is native along the coasts of Northern California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska. It was the most important of the numerous tree species for airplane construction. General Brice P. Disque best stated the reasons for preferring that material: “Sitka spruce, generally found in scattering clumps of trees in the forest of the Pacific Northwest, proved to be the best of all woods for airplane construction. It qualified better than any other wood in a combination of the necessary qualities of lightness, strength, and resiliency, long and tough fiber and would not splinter when struck by a rifle bullet.”^[2]

The Pacific Northwest was the primary supplier of aircraft-quality wood to Great Britain, France, and Italy. The Allied Powers requested spruce for their aircraft industry and shipments from the Northwest began as early as 1916. However, the quotas for aircraft grade lumber were not being met due to agitation by union organizers in Oregon and Washington. This was a problem for the War Department. The need for wood and related materials in the early days of aviation was a key factor in the formation of the Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen and the Spruce Production Division of the U.S. Army Signal Corps.

Labor Unrest Fueled by “Wobblie” Agitation

Formed in 1905 by a heterogeneous group of socialists and radical industrial unionists, the IWW intended first to supplant the conservative American Federation of Labor, and then to lead the working class, through revolutionary “direct action,” to the millennium of Marxist “industrial democracy.” It planned to combine the American working class, and eventually wage workers all over the world, into one big labor union with an industrial basis, a syndicalist philosophy, and a revolutionary aim. Historian Patrick Renshaw writes, “The revolution was to be achieved by a series of strikes, leading to a general strike, which would force the capitalists to capitulate. Thus the IWW was to be both the embryo of the new society and the revolutionary instrument for achieving it.”^[3] The beginning of the preamble of the IWW constitution, approved in 1905, is indicative of its perceived inflammatory nature, at least to employers of the early 1900s.

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace as long as hunger and want are found among millions of working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things in life. . . . Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the earth and the machinery of production, and abolish the wage system.^[4]

By the time of World War I, however, the IWW had become primarily a union of migratory “hobo” workers — the kind of workers most willing to sacrifice practical economic gains to revolutionary purity — and not the “One Big Union” of all workers that its founders had intended.^[5]

In a region still only a generation or two removed from frontier conditions and less than a generation removed from the great migration of big business lumber operations from the depleted Great Lakes timber lands to the Pacific Northwest, working conditions for loggers were primitive and harsh. “Crowded, ramshackle, and lice-infested logging camp barracks, cheap un- palatable food, dangerous outdoor work in all kinds of weather, and the unscrupulous assessments of private employment agencies, or “slave markets” as the IWW press called them, were only a few of the indignities a migratory logging camp worker had to face.”^[6] The life of a lumberjack was a hard one. Travelling from camp to camp for employment, they were required to carry their own bedding and supplies. These men became known as “Bindle Bums”, owing to their worldly possessions carried with them.

The conditions in the lumber camps were described by Robert Tyler, quoting a Department of Labor study from 1915:

The bunkhouse was small and unventilated to the point, in the words of one investigator, “the sweaty, steamy odors … would asphyxiate the uninitiated”. The bedding crawled with bedbugs. One camp investigated found 80 men crowded into a crude barracks with no windows. The men pressed into tiny bunks and went to sleep “under groundhog conditions”. A study of logging camps made in the winter of 1917-1918 found that half had no bathing facilities, half had only crude wooden bunks, and half were infested with bedbugs. Employers blamed the loggers for the swarms of bedbugs and lice because loggers brought the pests in their filthy “bindles” or bedrolls.”^[7]

These conditions were ripe for a “workers movement” such as the Wobblies. The Wobblies set out to organize the lumber industry in the Northwest with the goals of better conditions for loggers in the camps and the eight hour work day. These demands were met with stiff resistance from the lumber barons. The migratory nature of the workers in the industry made it difficult to form a cohesive base membership for the IWW. The same conditions provided an expendable labor force for the lumber camp owners.

It was obvious that only “One Big Union” could successfully lock horns with the powerful Lumber Trust. The IWW maintained lumber workers’ locals in the principal cities of the Northwest, and carried on its propaganda by holding meetings and distributing literature, but IWW propaganda and agitation alone did not account for the 1917 lumber strike. In 1916, a strong drive was made by the IWW to organize the lumber workers of the Northwest. It met with immediate success, and by the spring of 1917, thousands of lumber workers were recruited in the IWW. The rival Timber Workers union of the AFL represented only a diminishing sample of mill workers in the Puget Sound area during the same period. The government was more concerned with the powerful and representative IWW sponsored Lumber Workers Industrial Union No. 500 “because the IWW was officially considered a ‘seditious’ and ‘outlaw’ organization that the government had already set out to destroy.”^[8]

John Richardson points out in an article about the Everett Massacre of 1916 that the IWW was becoming a major problem for the Lumber Trust employers of the Pacific Northwest. He describes the volatile situation:

“Popular fear of the IWW grew for reasons that went beyond the union’s militant tactics and commitment to the marginal and disreputable. Its growth, in a network of local unions and in the list of successful strikes in which its members participated directly, paralleled the geographic spread of a nativism that linked anti-immigrant, but largely Catholic, sentiments with the menace of industrial laborers. The IWW became a psychological force seen as a threat to the moral necessity to preserve national unity through the protection of local community. The Wobbly was the rootless stranger whose potential for violence was stimulated when many gathered.”^[9]

On March 5, 1917, the Lumber Workers Industrial Union (LWIU), affiliated with the IWW, held its founding convention in Spokane, Washington. This union included both loggers and sawmill workers. The LWIU was a unit within the IWW and was formed to represent the lumber industry, separate from the original union, the Agricultural Workers Organization (AWO).^[10]

The demands of the inaugural Spokane convention of the LWIU were as follows:

• An eight-hour day with no work on Sundays or holidays;
• Minimum wage $60 per month plus board;
• Wholesome food in porcelain dishes, no overcrowding, sufficient kitchen help to keep the kitchen clean and sanitary;
• Sanitary sleeping quarters with no more than 12 men per bunkhouse; single spring beds and mattresses with good clean bedding to be furnished free by the company; bunkhouse to be well lit and furnished with reading tables; dry room (a room to dry clothes), laundry room, and shower baths;
• Free hospital service;
• $5 per day minimum for river drivers;
• Two paydays per month by bank check without discount;
• All men to be hired from the union hall; free transportation from place of hiring to place of job;
• No discrimination. ^[11]

On June 20, 1917, the Spokane-based Lumber Workers Industrial Union No. 500, IWW, formally began what would become a massive loggers’ strike. The radical union called the strike in the midst of an epidemic of small, spontaneous strikes throughout the “short-log” region (the pine log region east of the Cascades). Within two weeks, logging operations in the Northwest would effectively cease. In another two weeks, the strike spread to western Washington as the AFL’s Timber Workers Union joined in. The response, according to Tyler, was phenomenal. “In the Hoquiam region alone some 3,000 loggers and mill workers answered the call. Now the two unions were allied, even if uneasily. In Grays Harbor County shipyard workers called a sympathy strike.”^[12]

In August, in the context of World War I and the urgent need for lumber, Washington Governor Ernest Lister and the U.S. Secretary of War persuaded some logging firms to provide the eight-hour day, and by late August most loggers returned to work.^[13] A government raid on IWW offices had jailed many of the leadership under the auspices of the Espionage Act of 1917. Tyler describes the action: “In the meantime, sheriffs and Washington state policemen rounded up IWW strikers and agitators by the scores and detained them in specially built stockades in North Yakima, Pasco, Wenatchee, Cle Elum, and other towns.”^[14]

The union then announced that it would “take the strike to the job.” It insisted that this new tactic meant neither defeat nor the formal end to the strike, but only a more telling way of striking. The strikers returned to their jobs in camps and mills, but they continued to harry their employers and to restrict production with work slowdowns and sabotage. Tyler describes how “they loafed, they pretended ignorance and stood idle when the least initiative was needed, they perpetrated ‘accidents,’ and they acted as though their eight-hour day demand had been won, quitting work after eight-hour stints. Exasperated foremen, of course, discharged the trouble-makers, but the foot-loose transients merely collected their wages and moved on to another job to repeat the tactics.”^[15] This “strike on the job” made IWW members relatively immune from arrest because they no longer were obvious strikers; they carried no placards and walked no picket lines. It also eased the strain on the IWW treasury, for “much against their will the companies were forced to run the commissary of the strike.”^[16] However surprised and encouraged the IWW may have been by its “graduation from street corner, soap box agitation to real power and leadership, it could not enjoy the pride of power for long.”^[17]

 

The US Army needs to break the strike – for many reasons

The situation in the Northwest was far from being solved and the U.S. Army had reached a breaking point. At the height of the strike in the summer, spruce shipments had diminished to the vanishing point, and in September, after the IWW’s nominal return to work, shipments had risen to only 2,600,000 feet of the monthly 10,000,000 feet required.^[18] The production quotas were still not being met and the U.S. Government felt compelled to take decisive action.

Numerous attempts had been made by government commissions to deal with the labor situation in the northwestern lumber camps and mills, but the conferences closed without definite results. A 1918 article by economist Louis Wehle comments on the dilemma:

The situation is extremely complicated, presenting as it does, not only grievances of labor organizations affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, but also long-standing complaints of the International [sic] Workers of the World, a section of labor with which this commission was not well fitted to deal on account of its containing two high officials of the American Federation of Labor, with which the I. W. W. has often been on terms of hostility.^[19]

The Secretary of War decided to try another approach. He asked a former U.S. Army Captain, Brice, P. Disque, to investigate the situation. On September 29, 1917, he was reinstated into the Army as a Lt. Colonel. He then proceeded to Portland, Oregon to investigate the inadequate procurement of spruce for the Division of Military Aeronautics of the War Department and met for the first time with several of the parties involved in the labor-management problem. Colonel Disque discovered chaos during his two-week inspection tour. The War Department’s procurement officer in Portland operated futilely in the confusion with only one office assistant. When Colonel Disque was asked at a banquet what he considered to be the industry’s chief problem, he replied without equivocation that the labor problem appeared to him the most bothersome and that the “IWW menace” could not be made the scapegoat. “During this inspection tour a lumberman suggested to Disque that ‘some sort’ of a patriotic organization be formed to win over the support of the workers for the government’s production program.”^[20]

Harold M. Hyman’s book, Soldiers and Spruce: Origins of the Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen, published in 1963, is a singularly complete and balanced book about the people, events and outcomes of the period. Hyman points out that “up to this time [Oct/Nov 1917] Disque had looked upon the spruce problem primarily as a question of raising work efficiency, of securing improvements in sawing and felling techniques, and of increasing antiradical security activities.”^[21] It became evident to Disque that there were far greater problems in the Northwest to be dealt with. The government would not be able to meet its requirements only through military intervention in the troubled industry.

Colonel Disque travelled to the lumber camps and saw the conditions the workers were subjected to and was moved by their situation. These visits only reinforced Disque’s view that only some type of relief to the workers would result in meeting his goals of increased production. Hyman relates some of Disque’s comments:

Conditions in the worst camps turned Disque’s stomach. “We could not eat it,” he noted of a repellant, greasy stew that he and Parker were invited to share with loggers at one evening meal. Most bunkhouses would have failed to pass inspection standards of an extremely negligent Army company officer, he judged, and any Army medical man ‘would have exploded’ at the provisions at lumber camps for dealing with the effects of industrial accidents, communicable diseases, and common ailments.^[22]

The situation in the lumber camps aside, the primary issue in the Army’s eyes was the production of lumber. A solution was needed that would include both management conciliations to union organizer demands and a patriotic purpose for the workers in the woods. This new sense of patriotic urgency to help win the war would prove to be the driving force in breaking the stalemate, seen as out and out sedition, caused by the Wobblie agitators.

Through negotiations between the mill and kiln owners, the timber workers and various local government commission members, a plan was developed to bring in the U.S. Army to oversee the production of lumber and police the volatile labor disputes in Oregon and Washington. The meetings further laid the groundwork for the formation of a unique industry wide “company union” which would include both employers and workers in a common goal of supporting the U.S. war effort. The name of Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen was chosen, with emphasis on the “Legion” aspect, which separated this new idea from the term “Unionism”.

Colonel Disque summed up his recommendations to the War Department in a report, dated November 27, 1917. In this two page memo, he evaluates the situation with the IWW and the need for a military presence in the Northwest to oversee the production of the strategic resources. Disque’s views reflect the Wobblies’ influence in the overall problem:

1. The activities of alien enemies and domestic agitators in Washington and Oregon have been responsible for a very material decrease in production of lumber required by the government in the conduct of the war. . . .

5. Aside from the dispute between organizations of the American Federation of Labor and the employers, there has been for several months a determined and increasing determination on the part of the representatives of the IWW to slow down production by means that are unquestionably illegal. To some extent, this propaganda is inspired by a desire to injure the Government in its war preparations, but I believe this to be merely incidental and the general purpose is merely to destroy industry for the sake of destruction. I have in my files voluminous records from operators and secret service agents detailing accounts of violence and sabotage daily committed, which result in serious delays to practically all of the industries now concerned in producing aircraft materials. . . .

9. whatever the cause, the fact that the production of spruce and fir lumber urgently required by the War and Navy Departments in the prosecution of the war is being delayed seriously by this element. This spruce and fir lumber is material which the Government has contracted for and urgently requires, and for which we are constantly prodding contractors to expedite deliveries, and it is believed that the Government’s interest in the product of such manufacturers is of sufficient importance to justify protecting their plants with such forces of the Government as are necessary.^[23]

With authorization from the Secretary of War, Colonel Disque went forward with plans to create a division of the U.S. Army Signal Corps, the Spruce Production Division, to ensure the provision of the much needed spruce to the aircraft industry. In a letter published in the History of the Spruce Production Division, United States Army and United States Spruce Production Corporation, the new commander of the “Spruce Soldiers” described his immediate actions:

My mission was to increase the monthly production from three million to ten million feet at once. To a soldier, in time of war, any means that are necessary are justifiable.

The soldiers, after spending a quarantine period in Vancouver Barracks, where they were taught the rudiments of drill, some discipline, sanitation and patriotism, were distributed throughout the industry, and there was an immediate increase in production and the elimination of sedition, sabotage and unrest of labor in camps and mills.

Our next step was to bring home to the civilian laborers and the operators their vital connection with the Government’s war effort. The Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen resulted, and grew to a strength of over 125.000 men, pledged to stand behind the nation. From the day the Loyal Legion was organized there has not been a single labor disturbance in the logging and lumber industry of the Pacific Northwest.^[24]

Secretary of War Newton Baker sent a telegram of authorization to Colonel Disque on November 23, 1917 giving him the green light for the formation of the Loyal League of Loggers and Lumbermen. The first local was established in Wheeler, Oregon, on November 30, 1917. For several months its principal task was recruiting members, and it fulfilled few labor union functions and made few changes in working conditions. The War Department allotted one hundred officers to Colonel Disque for the project, and these officers, under First Lieutenant Maurice E. Crumpacker of the Signal Corps, toured the camps and mills of eastern Washington and Oregon administering a loyalty pledge to workers and employers, a simple act which constituted “joining up.”

In its infancy, the Loyal Legion in late 1917 and early 1918 was an organization that was loose and improvised, with Colonel Disque making most of the policy decisions in his headquarters at the Fort Vancouver barracks. Seven districts were established initially, and others were added later as Idaho and Eastern Washington were brought into the scope of the movement. The United States government achieved its goals with this unique excursion into the field of labor union organization. By the time of the Armistice, the Loyal Legion had recruited 120,000 members, including virtually everyone who had worked at all in the industry during the war months.

As the Legion grew, Colonel Disque, with the help of the Spruce Production Division, was able to achieve a number of significant accomplishments in the timber industry over the Legion’s short lifetime during WWI. Robert Tyler states, “an impressive record of achievements: the eight-hour day, the marked improvement in working conditions, a system of inspection and maintenance of reform, the restoration of morale, the diminishing of seditious and revolutionary sentiments among thousands of workers.”^[25]

The methods employed in the implementation of this new union were based on two main goals of the U.S. Army and Colonel Disque. First and foremost was the need for increased production of the strategic spruce, the driving force behind all efforts and activities of the Army in the Northwest. Secondly, and key to the success of the Legion, was to suppress and ultimately eliminate the interference of the IWW. The Wobblies were seen as subversive and anti-American by the government, and by painting them as pro-German through ultra-patriotic propaganda, the voice of the IWW would be “drowned out and its agitators sent scurrying for cover.”^[26]

“Bombing Pro-Hunism Out of the Northwest Forests”

The membership oath for the Loyal Legion was the first step in taking the industry back from the Wobblies. With the U.S. entry into the Great War, a wave of nationalistic patriotism and anti-German sentiment swept the country. The everyday vernacular of the citizens included words such as “Kaiser Bill” and “Hun”; even the German Shepherd dog became known as the Alsatian. This patriotic fervor was exploited by Colonel Disque in promoting the goals of the Legion as an avenue for workers to show their support for the nation. The membership oath was designed to instill a sense of loyalty toward the war effort and also to stamp out sedition (i.e., the Wobblies). Military officers were charged with signing up workers in the lumber camps and mills of the Northwest. The idea that they were backed up by armed soldiers in this effort did not escape the scrutiny of critics of the LLLL. “Everyone approached took the pledge at the peril of seeming unpatriotic and was furnished ‘with a card and a badge of unique and attractive design.’”^[27]

The text of the Loyal Legion oath is as follows:

Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen

PLEDGE

Aviation Section, Signal Corps, U.S. Army

To The Secretary of War:

I, the Undersigned, in consideration of being made a member of the Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen, do hereby solemnly pledge my efforts during this war to the United States of America, and will support and defend this Country against enemies, both foreign and domestic.

I further agree, by these presents, to faithfully do my duty toward this Country by directing my best efforts in every way possible to the production of Logs of Lumber for the construction of Army Airplanes and Ships to be used against our common enemies. That I will stamp out any sedition or acts of hostility against the United States Government which may come within my knowledge, and I will do every act and thing which will in general aid in carrying this war to a successful conclusion.

Dated this_____________________day of___________________1917.^[28]

The LLLL Monthly Bulletin became the masthead of the pro-war effort and was filled with anti-Wobblie articles. There is no other way to describe these writings other than blatant propaganda. This style was not unique to the Legion; the average citizen was continually exposed to this rhetoric from all forms of the media of the day. The monthly bulletins were made available to the membership for a fifty cent subscription. Production of this publication came under the responsibility of Lt. M. E. Crumpacker, the Army officer in charge of the LLLL. Articles by members and official memoranda were presented in a magazine format with patriotically themed covers, many in color. Issues are filled with anti-Wobblie news, accusing the IWW organizers of all kinds of seditious activities, impeding the war effort and aiding the enemy.

The purposes of the LLLL Bulletin are clear, to promote the goals of the government and to keep the rank and file member on its side. Some examples of the prose printed would make Joseph Goebbels blush, but they are all indicative of the ultra-patriotic nature of the Legion. One such example titled, “Weapon With Which Colonel Disque is Bombing Pro-Hunism Out of the Northwest Forests” appeared in the May 1918 edition of the LLLL bulletin:

“I am a new arm forged from our government’s stupendous war factory. Although I have a carrying capacity far beyond seventy-five miles, I shall never bombard a church, nor murder women and children, or Easter worshipers. I do not call myself Kultur, nor the Right Hand of God, nor even the All-Highest. Although I am potentially more powerful than the arsenals of Essen or Dusseldorf or Skoda I do not ravish women nor make slaves of men. I am composed, May 18^th of approximately 80,000 parts and each part has a soul and a heart and a conscience and a determination to do for our country what all the combined barbarities of all the ages could never do for Bill Hohenzollern – WIN THE WAR!

I am cleaning the Northwest forests of the foul traitors who spread the Kaiser’s propaganda and hindered the progress of the war. I am aiding the loyal men of the Northwest, the big majority of loggers and millmen, to rid their ranks of enemies of our country. With their aid I am making sedition as scarce in this section as freedom is in Germany. I peer into hidden places and search out the secret schemes of whispering disloyalists; I turn a blighting blast of scorn and vengeance from my loyal members upon the vultures who fatten in our land while sowing seeds of discontent. When the full effect of my projectiles shall have thoroughly permeated the forests and cities and towns of the Northwest they will be as purged of treachery as the Kaiser is of conscience. I have pledged my honest word to the Secretary of War to aid in every way to win this war, and I am exactly what my name implies – the LOYAL LEGION OF LOGGERS AND LUMBERMEN.^[29]

The bulletins also published the various minutes and resolutions of the meetings of the Legion, keeping the membership up to date with Colonel Disque’s vision for the organization. The “Objects of the Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen” were approved by Disque and subsequently published in the bulletin. The main points of this document are all related to the patriotic goals of the organization:

1. To give every camp and mill worker and operator a chance to show his loyalty to the country of his birth or adoption, to the country which affords him opportunity and protection.

2. To aid this country in every way possible in this crisis, particularly by speeding up the production of spruce and fir for airplanes and ships.

3. To render first aid to the boys who are flying in France, by giving them aircraft that outclasses anything the Kaiser [the leader of Germany] can produce.

4. To urge upon each member the necessity of remaining constantly at the same local [locale] during this war. Changing jobs causes loss of time. Every day’s work counts.

5. To always remember that a day’s lay-off means a day’s work for the German rulers who started the war.

6. To point out that in all history no set of men ever had as glorious an opportunity to aid the cause of human liberty as is now presented to the members of the Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen.

7. To emphasize the fact that citizenship in our country places the duties of Government upon each of us.

8. To place the interests of our country above self interests.

9. To stamp out sedition and prevent sabotage.

10. To give all members an opportunity to present any suggestions touching conditions within locals to the Government.

11. To give the Government a chance to shows its appreciation to the members for their showing of loyalty.

12. To help make the world safe for democracy.

“A dozen axes in a Northwest forest can do more for humanity
and civilization at this time than a regiment of rifles in France.”

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR.
Under Direction of Colonel Disque

M. E. Crumpacker
Officer in Charge.^[30]

The newly promoted Brigadier General Disque is quoted in a memo to a Spruce Division subordinate, illustrating the importance he placed on these publications and the membership oath. Disque writes, “Any attempt to nullify the purpose of the LLLL at this time must be considered as German propaganda.”^[31]

Anti-LLLL Propaganda and Controversy

The Army’s union did not have the support of everyone in the Northwest. Pro-union organizers of the American Federation of Labor and their rival IWW did come to agreement on one thing — the Loyal Legion was not the answer. Robert Tyler discusses the union position. “The IWW considered the prohibition of strikes in the Loyal Legion constitution its most objectionable provision, and one Wobbly writer sneered that the Loyal Legion left the workers with only the ‘gift of gab’ as a weapon.”^[32] The union organizers saw that they could not battle the patriotism of the Legion. Unions, especially the IWW were now seen in the Northwest as being against the U.S. war effort. Undoubtedly, the propaganda produced by the Legion publications was having a direct effect on the labor organizers’ ability to regain a stronghold in the lumber industry. What better way to counter propaganda than to produce their own in opposition?

In a post war publication, The I.W.W. in the Lumber Industry, probably printed in 1919 by the Lumber Workers Industrial Union (an IWW sponsored group), attacks on the U.S. Army and the LLLL were still being found. The author, James Rowan presents tirade after tirade about the situation during the war. This small pamphlet was distributed as pro-union propaganda in response to the successes of the Legion and General Disque. Two examples of unsubstantiated accusations are presented here:

In the meantime all the poisonous venom of the capitalist press was turned loose on the strikers. A campaign of lies, slander, and abuse, was daily carried on. Stories of the most absurd nature were circulated, in an attempt to turn public opinion against the strikers. Accusations were made that the strike was instigated and financed by German agents, to obstruct the U.S. Government in the conduct of the war, and to hinder the production of aero planes by stopping the production of spruce, and that $100,000 a month was received at strike headquarters, from the Kaiser.^[33]

The claim that the Kaiser was sending money to the IWW strike fund could possibly be found in the pages of the LLLL bulletins; however I was not able to locate the reference. Counter propaganda, published to an audience predisposed to believe the worst, was one of the tools used by the IWW in the post war years. A second example, equally vitriolic, directly attacks the officers in charge of the Loyal Legion.

With the purpose of breaking up and displacing the L.W.I.U., Colonel Disque started the Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen. Recent investigations of its activities show that to the lumbermen the 4-L’s meant Little Loyalty and Large Loot. Army officers, adept in terrorism, with no gentlemanly scruples to hold them from nefarious design, acted as organizers. Frequently they visited the camps, and all who refused to join the LLLL were accused of being spies, pro-Germans and traitors, and were usually fired off the job and beaten by soldiers. In one case a man who had the temerity to speak against the LLLL was found dead next morning, hanging from the limb of a tree.^[34]

Claims of strong arm tactics used by the Army to sign members was a common theme with the IWW leadership. It is hard to document instances of this due to most of the primary source materials being Army or LLLL related and do not show any misconduct. A search of local newspaper articles could possibly provide some type of proof. Accusations what they are, these two examples of Wobblie propaganda only illustrate the highly controversial nature of labor relations in the Northwest during the period. With a war raging in Europe, these battles of words paled in the overall scheme of events.

A Grain of Salt With Your Historiography?

The vintage of historical accounts can illuminate much about an author’s bias as well as the social climate in which it was written. Research into the turbulent times in our nation as it entered World War I needs to be conducted with a critical lens in many cases. The historiography of the Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen and the Industrial Workers of the World has been written in basically two different social epochs of American history. Journal articles produced in the 1918-1925 period have a pronounced patriotic bent to them. Writing for the Washington Historical Quarterly in 1918, Edmond S. Meany allows an editorial style of writing history come forth; “War has grown wonderfully complex, as have all the other activities of man in this Twentieth Century. In this complexity success can neglect no element. This being true, there will be heroism in the Spruce forests, the shipyards, the munitions factories, on the transports and railroads, as well as in the air, in the Navy and at the battlefronts in Europe.”^[35]

In 1923 the memory of the Wobblies was still fresh with comments in the Journal of Political Economy by Edward Mittelman such as “The I.W.W. look upon the timber workers as ‘capitalist tools’ used to keep the workers in ‘slavery.’ The Timber workers look upon the I.W.W. as worse than scabs, for any one can quiet a scab, but no one can ‘shut up’ an I.W.W.”^[36] Scholarly works during the period have a certain feel to the writing, and facts are sometimes obscured in the prose.

The next major block of work on the subject was produced during the social upheaval of the 1960s. Although the most balanced, accurate account of the Legion was written by Hyman in 1963, other books and scholarly articles do not fare as well. The growing distrust of the government, new radical idealism and an anti-business/pro-union creeps into the writing of history. Statements are found such as: “First came intervention by the Army in the summer of 1917 to break I.W.W. strikes throughout the northwest. Such illegal and unconstitutional action by the military was but a temporary expedient.”^[37] The histories written during this period have that distinctive feel once again, only with a 1960s flavor. Granted, the historiography concerning the Legion and Wobblies covers a controversial subject, but care in the interpretation must be exercised.

Conclusion

The Great War had an effect on the entire planet, and the Pacific Northwest played a pivotal role in the United States’ war effort. The war morphed the psyche of the American people from isolationist nativism in 1914 to a position of fervent patriotism by our entry into the war in 1917. This new patriotism would become an important tool used by General Brice P. Disque in the formation of the only U.S. Army operated “union” in history. General Disque capitalized on a nationwide distrust of the Wobblies, playing on the perceptions that they were a seditious, anti-American organization with the goals of overthrowing the capitalist system. He had a mission to accomplish from the U.S. Government and was not going to allow the IWW to stand in the way. By developing a sense of national pride and wartime urgency within the membership of the Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen, Disque broke the Wobblies’ influence in the timber industry. With the goals of meeting the nations’ requirements for spruce lumber and solving the labor disputes spurred by the Industrial Workers of the World, a unique, if not dark chapter in U.S. labor history, played out in the coastal forests of Oregon and Washington.

 

As a World War One Historian, I would be remiss by not passing on the story of the Christmas Truce of 1914.   Although these truces have been observed throughout conflicts in history, the 1914 truce is unique in military history, due to the close proximity of the combatants in the trenches.  The  story of the World War One truce is noteworthy.   The Christmas Truce has been researched by WWI Historians trying to chronicle the true events and separating the myths.   In my Non Traditional Student History Major way, I was moved to publish this story by viewing a very emotional You Tube video posted by a friend on Facebook.   I urge you to take the few minutes to view this video called  “Christmas in the Trenches.” This song was written by a WWI soldier named Francis Tolliver, and it is very moving.  This started a research session as a History Major even during my Christmas Break from college.    My search also yielded a couple more  pieces dedicated to this Christmas event during the Great War.  “Christmas in no man’s Land” is another ballad about the Truce in 1914, well worth a listen.  And to my surprise, Paul McCartney wrote “Pipes of Piece” in 1983 and produced a wonderful video about the event.   Being a WWI historian,  and a child of the era, I still get a lump in my throat every Christmas when I hear “Snoopy vs. the Red Baron” by the Royal Guardsmen, I know, I’m a softie/geek!     These You Tube videos are my History Major gifts to all of you this season, I hope that they will make you stop and think of our troops in far away countries this holiday season.

The actual history of the Christmas Truce has been covered quite well on the internet.   I have found many wonderful sites that tell the story of this event.   Many of the sites have most of the information correct as we know it today.   One site in particular, “The Christmas Truce “ is probably the most complete and historically accurate.    Another description from a Scottish Blogger, Jimmy is well written and for the most part accurate:

The year is 1914 and World war 1 has been going on for 4 months,soldiers from Germany and Britain, living in mud filled trenches suffering from the cold weather,the chill of the icy rain pouring down on them, with the rain comes the constant shell bombardment from both sides,snipers picking off their targets death is everywhere hope is nowhere. Suddenly around 10pm after the guns had fallen silent,singing could be heard from the German trenches,

Stille Nacht! Heil’ge Nacht!

Alles schläft; einsam wacht

Nur das traute hoch heilige Paar.

Holder Knab’ im lockigen Haar,

Schlafe in himmlischer Ruh!.

Christmas eve and the German soldiers were singing Carols,and after a while the British joined in singing in English, for the first time in four months there was hope in the air.  Day light came on Christmas morning, the soldiers from both trenches lay aside their arms got out of the trenches and walked into no man’s land, about half way between the trenches, they shook hands and exchanged cigarettes and chocolate whilst wishing each other a merry Christmas, a soccer ball was produced and both sides played soccer this went on for a while,slowly both sides dispersed back to their own respective trenches.  The next day the shelling started again and the war was back on. The miracle of peace and goodwill to all men never meant so much as it did on Christmas day 1914.

The website, “Eyewitness to History” has an excellent account by  British Soldier, Frank Richards of the events that day:

“On Christmas morning we stuck up a board with ‘A Merry Christmas’ on it. The enemy had stuck up a similar one. Platoons would sometimes go out for twenty-four hours’ rest – it was a day at least out of the trench and relieved the monotony a bit – and my platoon had gone out in this way the night before, but a few of us stayed behind to see what would happen. Two of our men then threw their equipment off and jumped on the parapet with their hands above their heads. Two of the Germans done the same and commenced to walk up the river bank, our two men going to meet them. They met and shook hands and then we all got out of the trench.

Buffalo Bill [the Company Commander] rushed into the trench and endeavoured to prevent it, but he was too late: the whole of the Company were now out, and so were the Germans. He had to accept the situation, so soon he and the other company officers climbed out too. We and the Germans met in the middle of no-man’s-land. Their officers were also now out. Our officers exchanged greetings with them. One of the German officers said that he wished he had a camera to take a snapshot, but they were not allowed to carry cameras. Neither were our officers”

As a History Major and a Non Traditional Student, I never seem to stop researching.   This topic should come in handy next term at OSU.   I will be taking a class in 20th Century European History.   But for now, it is time to focus on family and friends.    I wish everyone peace and a happy holiday season.

My final research paper for my ENG203 class was a look at the Elizabethan sexual references made by Shakespeare.   Today’s audiences miss some of these juicy, sexy and downright bawdy jokes.   Censorship was rampant during Shakespeare’s times but he still had to entertain his groundling and penny stinkards at the Globe Theater.  This paper only looks at a few of the bawdy jokes from the plays we studied this last Spring Term 2010.   All of his plays are full of raunchy sex jokes that were the X rated movies of the Elizabethan era.   As a Non Traditional Student, I wanted to write my final paper for my instructor on a subject that he so vividly illustrated in his lectures.   Only Shakespearean Scholars (geeks) usually get these jokes today, but during Shakespeare’s lifetime, the Bard kept them rolling in the aisles with a steady stream of sexual double entendres.  Even though I have completed this series of English Literature classes, I will continue to research and write posts on this topic here on Reaching Lifelong Goals.com just for fun!!    I hope you enjoy this research paper.

X Rated Shakespeare

William Shakespeare knew what his audiences wanted.   He produced plays that were topical, controversial, and also quite risqué!   Ask any advertiser in the 21^st century and they will tell you, “sex sells!”   It seems that some things never change.   Similar to Shakespeare’s use of topical references, many of the more bawdy lines go unappreciated by modern audiences.   Shakespeare used bawdy humor in his dialogue to entertain theater-goers in the same way that current day stand up comedians and PG rated films does.

Gordon Williams published a rather detailed dictionary of sexual  language in 1994 in which he states, “On the whole, and certainly in discursive writings of Shakespeare’s day, the blunt monosyllable gets into print chiefly by way of punning allusion”  (Williams.10).   It is well established that William Shakespeare was the master of the pun in all of his works.   It is interesting that this skill was also used to weave into plays some of the most outrageous sexual references right under the censor’s noses.

Pauline Kiernan, in her book Filthy Shakespeare, makes an interesting point about the Elizabethan audience, “Shakespeare’s audiences were fine-tuned to hearing what we now call subtext in a way that we can hardly begin to imagine.  When they talked of going to the theater, they called is going to hear a play, not to see one” (Kiernan.12).

Enough with the tease, shall we take a closer look at the bawdy references in the plays studied this Spring term 2010; Twelfth Night, Othello and The Tempest. There are several examples in each of these plays of how Shakespeare kept things lively in the Globe, regrettably have space for only a sample in this format.

Perhaps the wildest lines that made it past the censors were in Twelfth Night, where the Puritan Malvolio says, “By my life, this is my lady’s hand.  These be her very C’s, her U’s aNd her T’s and thus makes her great P’s” (12thN.2.5.72-74).  Shakespeare has great fun in presenting Malvolio, a Puritan as a fool, with his aspirations to social climbing and class envy.   The groundlings would have been rolling in the isles over this one.  This line is often cut from productions.   It would seem that the Puritans had their way with this passage, even to modern times.

In Act 1, scene 3, Sir Toby Belch has an exchange with Sir Andrew where he makes fun of “hair”.   “Excellent, it hangs like flax on a distaff, and I hope to see a housewife take thee between her legs and spin it off” (12thN.1.3.84-85).   A fairly tame sounding line, to today’s audience.   The references are to a penis (distaff) and a woman (whore) masturbating (spin it off) Sir Andrew.  Again, this line is also over the heads of modern audiences, who laugh without really getting the joke.

There are many sexual references in the play, Othello, the Moore of Venice. Perhaps one of the lines that a modern audience would get the meaning of is given by Iago in Act I.   “I am one, sir, that comes to tell you your daughter and the Moor are now making the beast with two backs (O.I.1.115).   This is an Elizabethan slang term that was documented by Eric Partridge in his book Shakespeare’s Bawdy. This book was written in the early 1950s and was quite controversial for the times.   The sensibilities of the era are reflected in his definition of Iago’s obscenity, “A man and a woman in coitu obviously resemble a two-headed animal with two backs, four arms, and four legs”. (Partridge.144).   This definition was a polite way of saying “doggie style” today.

Another famous quote from Iago is both racial and sexual.   “Even now, now, very now, and old black ram is tupping your white ewe” (O.I.1.89-90).  This reference is fairly easy to understand, in any culture, and any era.   Both of the texts make reference to “tup” as a term for sex.  Other references are found in this play which revolves around the sexual puns exchanged between Iago and Desdemona.  In Act V, Scene 1 there is a reference to the sexual double standard that allowed men to be unfaithful while women who did so were considered whores.   Emilia says, “I do think it is their husband’s faults if wives do fall.   Say that they slack their duties and pour our treasures in foreign laps…And have not we affections, desires for sport, and frailty, as men have?” (O.5.1)   This would be defined as what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

The final play studied was The Tempest, which is fairly “clean” as far as sex goes.   Prospero warns Ferdinand in Act 4, Scene 1 that “If thou dost break her virgin-knot before all sanctimonious ceremonies …be ministered” (T.4.1.15-17).   Here the reference to virginity is illustrated with a period term that is fairly straight-forward.   An interesting reference in regard to the late Queen Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen.   Kiernan tells of a quote by Ben Johnson where he said “that she had a membrane on her so thick that no man could penetrate her, though for her delight, she tried many” (Kiernan.283).   Johnson went on to publish this story in Conversations with Drummond in 1618-19.

The topic of bawdy language in Shakespeare’s works is a discipline all on its own to research.   There are more references and puns in his works that it is an area that a Shakespearean scholar could spend a lifetime researching.   Perhaps Pauline Kiernan states it best, “His plays and poems are stuffed with the kind of double entendres and obscene wordplay that would make our most risqué stand-up comics blush” (Kiernan, 12).

Works Cited

Kiernan, Pauline.  Filthy Shakespeare. New York:  Gotham Books. 2006.

Partridge, Eric.  Shakespeare’s Bawdy.  London: Routledge.  1968

Williams, Gordon.  Dictionary of Sexual Language and Imagery in Shakespearean and

Stuart Literature. New Jersey:  Athalone Press. 1994

I have two more research papers to post from my Shakespeare English Studies classes.   The play this paper was written about was The Tempest.   I have gotten A+ grades on all of these papers.   Being a History Major, I have taken my study of the works of Shakespeare and looked at them from a historical perspective.   As a Non Traditional Student, I put in that extra Non Trad effort on all of these papers.   Each paper I have posted was supposed to be a short 2 page paper, my papers are about 4-6 pages each.  I have one more to post, probably in the next couple of days.   This was my last term at Linn Benton Community College, and starting in a couple of weeks I’ll be full time at Oregon State University.   I will try to keep posting my college papers here on the Reaching Lifelong Goals.com blog so they can float around in cyberspace forever.   Hope you enjoy this paper.   I address the Shakespeare Authorship debate as it relates to sources used for the writing of The Tempest (1611).

Shakespeare’s Sources for The Tempest – Reflections of a “Born Again” Stratfordian

The evidence of William Strachey’s 1610 True Reportory being a major influence in Shakespeare’s The Tempest is profound, or is it?   Again and again in my research of the works of William Shakespeare, anti-Stratfordian arguments seem to wash up like flotsam on a Bermuda beach.  The parallels of the experiences of William Strachey and the wreck of the Sea Venture with the plot and details of The Tempest seem overwhelmingly obvious to me.  To the Oxfordian author Nina Green, somehow there are none to be found.

In a 1996 article, David Kathman lays out a detailed comparison of the events of the 1609 wreck of the Sea Venture and the subsequent narration sent back to England by the expedition’s chronicler, William Strachey.  He lists over 50 connections to the play from the events from the voyage to the new world.  Kathman states, “William Shakespeare had multiple connections to both the Virginia Company and William Strachey, and it is not at all surprising that he would have had access to Strachey’s letter. As I will also show, this letter saturates The Tempest, providing the basic scenario, many themes and images, and many details of plot and language. The first recorded performance of The Tempest was at Court on November 1, 1611, allowing us to date the play’s composition with remarkable accuracy to the roughly one-year period between the fall of 1610 and the fall of 1611″ (Kathman 1).  With close examination of this comparison, Kathman gets into minute detail with phrases found in the Strachey letter and their use in The Tempest. I agree with most of his findings, but feel he may have been trying a little too hard to find some of the links.   Overall, his arguments are sound, historically factual, and logical.

The rebuttal from Nina Green tries to disprove each of the 50+ parallels, and to put forth the idea that Edward DeVere, the 17^th Earl of Oxford, somehow wrote the play under the pen name of Shakespeare.   The fact that DeVere died on the 24^th of June, 1604, seven years before the documented first performance of The Tempest, is not mentioned in her attack on Kathman’s work.  The 94 page refutation paper begins with the tone, “When subjected to analysis, David Kathman’s false parallels all melt into thin air. They are insubstantial and baseless. They dissolve and fade, leaving ‘not a rack behind’ “(Green 1).  It goes downhill from there.   The attacks on Kathman’s parallels are, at best, nitpicking, taking each entry and coming up with an explanation that seems to be correct on the surface, but missing the main point that Shakespeare used the accounts as inspiration for a work of fiction, not a travelogue or a documentary.

One example that I found indicative of Nina Green’s overall arguments is about the actual geography known to the Elizabethans of the islands around Bermuda.  She questions, “Would Shakespeare have used a tract mentioning a group of five hundred islands as a source for a play about a single isolated island”(Green 2)?  The simple answer is, why not?   The Kathman paper proposes that Shakespeare used the accounts of William Strachey as a source, not as an actual template of the events that were somehow required to write the play.

Along the same vein of reasoning, Green further writes, “Similarly, the flora and fauna in Bermuda as described by Strachey and Jourdain are markedly different from the flora and fauna mentioned by Shakespeare in The Tempest” (Green 3).  The island described in the play is only loosely based on Bermuda, and perhaps Shakespeare felt no need to include “…stingrays, whales and sharks” (Green 3) as set pieces on the Globe Stage.

Only three pages into this diatribe that tries to disprove Shakespeare’s use of sources that were very definitely available to him, we begin to see the desperation of many of the Oxfordian arguments.   Carefully reading all 94 pages of this rebuttal only reinforces my status as a “born again” Stratfordian.   Seeking arguments that are considered to be peer-reviewed, I researched articles published in the Shakespeare Quarterly as an effort to make some sense out of Shakespeare’s sources for The Tempest.

Alden T. Vaughn published an article in the Fall 2008 issue of the quarterly, titled William Strachey’s “True Reportory” and Shakespeare: A Closer Look at the Evidence. In this work, the author explores some of the attacks on Strachey’s True Reportory, both as it was probably available to Shakespeare in 1610, and the published version of 1625.  The author gives a very detailed account of the challenges to Strachey’s letter as a source, and refutes each of them.

The main issue surrounding the debate on William Strachey’s chronicles seems to boil down to what access Shakespeare had to it as a source in 1610.   Strachey’s ties with the Elizabethan theaters before the voyage, and his probable connections to both Burbage and Shakespeare, are documented in Vaughn’s dissection of the previous work on the issue.   The author cites the works of Edmund Malone (1808) and Morton Luce (1901) as being important early articles linking Bermuda and William Strachey to the writing of the play (Vaughn 245).

Finding credible arguments about the sources for The Tempest in peer-reviewed articles further reinforces my conclusions about the historical events involved.   I feel that Alden Vaughn was correct in stating, “The virtual certainty that Strachey’s letter reached London in September 1610 and the overwhelming probability that at least two copies circulated widely among Company officials and their friends establish that ‘True Reportory’ was available for Shakespeare to use in The Tempest. The abundant thematic and verbal parallels between the play and ‘True Reportory’ have persuaded generations of readers that Shakespeare borrowed liberally from Strachey’s dramatic narrative in telling his island tale” (Vaughn 273).

Total immersion in all things Shakespeare over the past three terms has given this old history geek a new-found appreciation of the works of the Bard.  Looking at the plays from my historical perspective has been a journey into 16^th century Elizabethan England, and how Shakespeare dovetails into its history.  The authorship debate is often a side-trip that diverts my research path, but I remain steadfast, a “born again” Stratfordian.  And yes, the government faked the Apollo moon landings on a sound stage in Burbank!

Works Cited

Green, Nina. “False Parallels in David Kathman’s Dating The Tempest.”  Oxford-Shakespeare.com. 2005. 22 May 2010. Web.

Kathman, David. “Dating The Tempest.” Shakespeareauthorship.com. 1996. 22 May 2010.web.

Vaughn, Alden. “William Strachey’s ‘True Reporatory’ and Shakespeare: A Closer Look At the Evidence.” Shakespeare Quarterly . Volume 59, Number 3, Fall 2008, pp. 245-273. 22 May 2010. Web.

Today, I continue to add one of my older Shakespeare research papers from my first term in Mr. Jensen’s class.  By the end of the term, I was feeling quite good about my success in the course.   This paper was a little indulgent on my part, but it still received another A+.  This paper was the first one that came in at the required 2 pages/double spaced (most of my papers have been in the 5-6 page range). Now that I have completed the entire ENG201-203 series, I still feel the same as my first term paper reflected.   I will be spending this weekend writing my last research paper for this instructor.   I have every confidence that I will end up with a perfect record of all 12 papers for this class earning A+ grades.  I’ll be posting the last couple of papers later this week (after final exams!  I have 3 this term…)   This journey as a Non Traditional Student returning to college after 35 years is really becoming one of the big successes of my life!

Reflections on Early Shakespeare  “The Bard through New Eyes”

I feel compelled to look back on my studies of the early works of William Shakespeare with a new-found understanding and appreciation of his plays for what they truly are, literary genius.  As a “theater person”, mostly in the technical realm, I was never able to read a play for pure pleasure.   How would I get my actors to exit stage left?    How will the sound effect be cued?   How many flats would I need to build an Elizabethan tavern for The Merry Wives of Windsor? Every script was more of an exercise in logistics and design versus the wonderful stories and dialogue.

What I have learned over the past ten weeks has allowed me to see the Bard’s plays through new eyes.   As a History Major, I was drawn to the historical tidbits in lectures about 16^th century England.   The study of these works became more than reading a play.   Richard III led me down a path of discovery about two young princes, lost in the Tower of London.   Shakespeare’s histories came to life in the study of how King Richard manipulates and schemes his way into the crown.   Having the background of how Shakespeare was able to fit history onto the stage was a highlight in my enjoyment of the play.

Information about Shakespeare’s poems involving his dedications to Henry Wriothesley sparked my interest as I read the words.   Who was the Bard referring to here?    How does this possibly relate to the “dark lady”?   I was reading a poem for both pleasure and clues at the same time.   This is what is so exhilarating about seeing this literature through my new eyes.    The theories about the symbols of Venus and Adonis and various codes that were popular in Renaissance England will be a theme I will follow throughout my study of Shakespeare.

I cannot possibly convey how wonderful it is to enjoy Shakespeare’s comedies on a literary and historical basis.    It really helps when you get the jokes!   The use of various mythological characters mixed into one story is fascinating when you learn how they were weaved together so artfully.   Again, my love of all things Historical allowed me to learn about medieval herbalists and the use of many botanical references all through Shakespeare’s works.    Further study of these references and Will’s country upbringing will be forthcoming.

Love and Hate, romance and war, the juxtaposition in the Tragedy Romeo and Juliet is another joy to behold.   And to think, only a few years ago, all I could think of was how to build that crazy balcony!    I originally planned to write this paper comparing West Side Story with this play.   As I watched, furiously taking notes, I finally realized that I was seeing something through this wonderful filter of literary awareness.    It did give me pause.   Where will these “new eyes” of mine lead me next? I hope that you will allow me this one indulgent paper.   I liken it to the catharsis of the climax of a Greek tragedy.   Not since I played the role of Banquo in the 4^th grade (with rave revenues on the playground I should add) have I been able to really enjoy my studies of William Shakespeare.   For this gift, I must thank you.