Explore the vast range of titles available.

Worthy of the Cause for Which They Fightchronicles the experiences of a well-educated and articulate Confederate officer from Arkansas who witnessed the full evolution of the Civil War in the Trans-Mississippi Department and western theater. Daniel Harris Reynolds, a community leader with a thriving law practice in Chicot County, entered service in 1861 as a captain in command of Company A of the First Arkansas Mounted Rifles. Reynolds saw action at Wilson's Creek and Pea Ridge before the regiment was dismounted and transferred to the Army of Tennessee, the primary Confederate force in the western theater. As Reynolds fought through the battles of Chickamauga, Atlanta, Nashville, and Bentonville, he consistently kept a diary in which he described the harsh realities of battle, the shifting fortunes of war, and the personal and political conflicts that characterized and sometimes divided the soldiers. The result is a significant testimonial offering valuable insights into the nature of command from the company to brigade levels, expressed by a committed Southerner coming to grips with the realities of defeat and the ultimate demoralization of surrender.

Because agency law fell out of favor in the legal academy more than a century ago, modern scholars generally overlook the agency basis of many legal rulings and doctrines.1 They are missing a lot. A 2022 decision involved a high school football coach who was fired because he knelt in prayer at the 50-yard line after football games, contrary to orders from the school district.6 The Court held that the coach was engaged in private speech protected by the First Amendment, and not speech on behalf of the government that the government had a plenary right to control, because the coach was not acting to fulfill \"his duties as a coach,\" even if \"a reasonable observer could (mistakenly)\" have thought otherwise.7 The Court said that the coach could have been fired if he had misused his authority as a coach to coerce others to join him in prayer but found no evidence he had done so.8 A 2024 decision involved a city manager who posted about his job on his personal Facebook page, blocked a critic of pandemic restrictions from responding to his posts, and then was sued by the critic for allegedly engaging in government censorship violative of the critic's First Amendment rights.9 The Court held that liability depended on whether the city manager had actual authority from the government to post about his job on behalf of the government and had purported to use that authority in the relevant posts (factual issues leftfor the lower court after remand). [...]in 1871, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the doctrine of apparent authority, under which actors who are held out by a principal as having a particular authority will be treated as if they really did have that authority (even if, in fact, they did not) to the extent needed to protect third parties who reasonably believed in the appearance of authority created by the principal.25 By contrast, the courts were much more restrained in cases involving public agents, leaving the expansion of the qui facit idea to the legislatures and, absent a contrary legislative directive, refusing to treat unauthorized actions by government agents as if the actions were authorized.26 For example, in 1877, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the private sector doctrine of apparent authority did not apply to the government.27 Congress has authorized some expansion of the qui facit idea. Most relevant for our purposes are federal civil rights statutes enacted to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment that impose federal criminal and civil liability on persons who violate the constitutional rights of others through actions taken \"under color of\" state law.28 The Supreme Court has interpreted these laws to mean that government employees who misuse governmental authority delegated to them will be treated as acting in an official capacity for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, even if the government did not authorize their misuse of authority to commit wrongful acts.29 Two recent decisions illustrate how the U.S. Supreme Court has used these basic principles of public sector agency law to define the First Amendment rights and duties of public employees.

Worthy of the Cause for Which They Fight chronicles the experiences of a well-educated and articulate Confederate officer from Arkansas who witnessed the full evolution of the Civil War in the Trans-Mississippi Department and western theater. Daniel Harris Reynolds, a community leader with a thriving law practice in Chicot County, entered service in 1861 as a captain in command of Company A of the First Arkansas Mounted Rifles. Reynolds saw action at Wilson's Creek and Pea Ridge before the regiment was dismounted and transferred to the Army of Tennessee, the primary Confederate force in the western theater. As Reynolds fought through the battles of Chickamauga, Atlanta, Nashville, and Bentonville, he consistently kept a diary in which he described the harsh realities of battle, the shifting fortunes of war, and the personal and political conflicts that characterized and sometimes divided the soldiers. The result is a significant testimonial offering valuable insights into the nature of command from the company to brigade levels, expressed by a committed Southerner coming to grips with the realities of defeat and the ultimate demoralization of surrender.