Slocum has to hogtie a mad cattle baron… John Slocum rides into a booming cow town at the request of an old friend who needs his help. Too bad his friend is already six feet under with a fatal case of lead poisoning, courtesy of a local rancher with a mile-wide mean streak and delusions of grandeur. But the killer cattle man is about to learn that when you mess with a bull named Slocum, you get the horns…

"Volumes nine and ten of the Luzerne legal register are in first Kulp [i.e. Kulp's Luzerne legal register reports], volumes eleven and twelve are in second Kulp, and volumes thirteen and fourteen are in third Kulp, with different paging."--V. 11, p. [iii].

Dunmore's War of 1774 was the culmination of a long series of disputes between settlers and Native Americans in western Virginia and Pennsylvania. In an effort to quell the increasingly violent Indian incursions, Virginia Governor John Murray, the Earl of Dunmore, carried on a successful retaliatory campaign known as "Dunmore's War." This book presents a history of that war through the use of primary documents selected from the mass of manuscript historical material in the famous Draper Collection at the Wisconsin Historical Society. Numerous footnotes throughout the volume provide a wealth of biographical information, as do the lists of muster rolls and biographies of field officers at the end of the book.

In The Making of Reverse Discrimination Ellen Messer-Davidow offers a fresh and incisive analysis of the legal-judicial discourse of DeFunis v. Odegaard (1974) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the first two cases challenging race-conscious admissions to professional schools to reach the US Supreme Court. While the voluminous literature on DeFunis and Bakke has focused on the Supreme Court’s far from definitive answers to important constitutional questions, Messer-Davidow closely examines each case from beginning to end. She investigates the social surrounds where the cases incubated, their tours through the courts, and their aftereffects. Her analysis shows how lawyers and judges used the mechanisms of language and law to narrow the conflict to a single white male applicant and a single white-dominated university program to dismiss the historical, sociological, statistical, and experiential facts of “systemic racism” and thereby to assemble “reverse discrimination” as a new object of legal analysis. In exposing the discursive mechanisms that marginalized the interests of applicants and communities of color, Messer-Davidow demonstrates that the construction of facts, the reasoning by precedent, and the invocation of constitutional principles deserve more scrutiny than they have received in the scholarly literature. Although facts, precedents, and principles are said to bring stability and equity to the law, Messer-Davidow argues that the white-centered narratives of DeFunis and Bakke not only bleached the color from equal protection but also served as the template for the dozens of anti–affirmative action projects—lawsuits, voter referenda, executive orders—that conservative movement organizations mounted in the following years.