Explore the vast range of titles available.

In journal form, provides an introduction to the life and career of the military leader who never lost a major battle, and whose strategies are still studied today.

In declaring, in the open street, in front of the marine barracks, on or about the 1st of September, instant, in the presence of a number of his officers, that he did not care a damn for the president, Jesus Christ, or God Almighty.1 Misconduct by senior leaders in the U.S. armed forces always makes the news-invariably accompanied by a discussion of whether senior leaders receive more lenient treatment than the junior members of their services.2 It might be surprising, then, to learn that both the third and fourth3 Commandants of the Marine Corps were court-martialed while in office. [...]it is doubtful an officer such as Gale would survive the modern selection and confirmation process for general and flag officer.4 Also, courts-martial of senior officers used to be more common, and were not necessarily career-ending.5 On the other hand, there is some validity to the critique that the modern military justice system loses its potency when the accused wears stars.6 Despite two centuries of reform to military law, the trials of Franklin Wharton and Anthony Gale still have lessons to teach today's judge advocate about court-martialing general and flag officers. Franklin Wharton Background and the War of 1812 Born in 1767 and a native of Philadelphia, Franklin Wharton received his commission in 1798.17 He was the next senior officer in the Corps when Lieutenant Colonel William Ward Burrows resigned in March 1804.18 So, just six years after becoming a Marine, Wharton became commandant.19 As the nation headed into the War of 1812, its Marines (about 1,000 in number) were distributed throughout its newly vast territory, from Louisiana to New England, and served as shipboard guards on some sixty vessels.20 In June 1812, Congress declared war on Great Britain, apparently more out of a sense of honor than confidence that the United States could win.21 The British-still fighting Napoleon-did not deploy significant forces to America until the defeat of the French Empire in the spring of 1814.22 On 19 August, a British force landed in Maryland and began to march on Washington.23 For his part, Wharton had previously carved a \"battalion\" of a little over 100 men out of the 150 to 200 Marines under his personal command in Washington, and placed it under the command of his adjutant, Captain Samuel Miller.24 These Marines fought as part of the American Army at Bladensburg, Maryland, on 24 August, just a few miles away from Washington.25 They fought well, but the Marines could not change the battle's course: principally a militia force, most American troops at Bladensburg fled on contact with their professional British counterparts,26 who were in Washington that evening.27 The federal government had already evacuated.28 Before making his escape, Wharton offered the commander of the Washington Navy Yard assistance, which he declined.29 British troops famously burned the capital,30 but the two countries, realizing they had more to lose than gain from the war,31 reached a peace agreement the following winter.32 Marines had done well in the war, though they were too few in number to have made much of a difference.33 One Marine, however, was particularly dissatisfied with the commandant's performance: \"36 So, in 1817, he preferred charges against his commandant.37 The Wharton Court-MartiaL The court-martial assembled in Washington on 10 September 1817.38 The panel consisted of eleven members-nine Army officers, two Marines-with an Army colonel presiding.39 Remarkably, one of the Marines detailed to the court, Captain Wainwright, was a prosecution witness and named in two of the specifications.40 Pointing this out, he sensibly requested to withdraw, but the court-martial retained him as a member anyway.41 Henderson himself served as the prosecutor.42 He charged Wharton with five specifications of neglect of duty and three specifications of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.43 Each charge had one specification concerning Wharton's leadership during the War of 1812.

Commensal rodents, including the house mouse (Mus musculus L.), pose a substantial risk of damage and disease towards human kind, threatening the infrastructure and food supply on which it depends. The implications of rodent infestations have become more significant as issues of public health and food safety become elevated priorities. Effective control of house mice relies heavily on rodenticides of which, the efficacy is known to be impacted by a variety of factors including palatability, social interaction and the development of behavioral aversions. In this study, analysis of consumption rates, recorded video, and capture-mark-recapture (CMR) data were utilized to investigate changes in house mouse feeding behavior, population demographics, interactions with bait stations, changes in movements, and spatial distribution in response to two sequential temporal rotations from nontoxic bait to a cholecalciferol rodenticide. Compared to nontoxic bait, consumption of cholecalciferol bait fell to 45% within two days of introduction and continued to decline to approximately 2% within seven days. When nontoxic bait was returned, consumption levels rebounded to approximately 25% of original nontoxic levels, while abundance estimates indicated a 62% population reduction. When cholecalciferol bait was returned, consumption trends were similar to the original baiting, resulting in a reduction in abundance to 3% of the original population. Analysis of mouse activity in and around bait station locations suggest that mice visited areas where bait stations were to be placed less frequently (P = 0.0620) before placement than after. The percentage of visits initially entering empty stations was significantly less than all other phases. Mice visited stations significantly less (frequency and duration) and consumed significantly less bait during phases offering cholecalciferol compared to phases offering nontoxic bait. The majority of the time mice spent in observation areas (35 x 95 cm area around the station) was inside a bait station and mice were seldom observed to cohabitate a bait station. When nontoxic bait was returned, mouse activity and consumption rebounded then subsequently declined when nontoxic bait was replaced with cholecalciferol the second time, showing similar trends to the initial placement. Analysis of CMR data revealed that no significant changes were observed in the distance of mouse movements following the initial rodenticide treatment which reduced population abundance by 62%. The location of mouse movements was not significantly impacted by the rodenticide treatment. Juveniles were observed to have significantly greater movements than adults. Typical movements were expansive enough to include multiple bait stations spaced at 2.5 m to 3.5 m intervals. Immigration and emigration were not identified as a significant factor leading to incomplete control after the initial treatment. Demographic analysis of captured individuals and recovered mortality indicated that the cholecalciferol treatment caused greater female mortality, as the male to female ratio increased over twofold from the studies inception to completion.