preview copy

Pricing Your Work

a necessary evil and royal pain in the ass

Some of us would rather walk on coals than deal with pricing, negotiating, invoicing... It’s a hotly contested issue with all designers. From Etsy team forums to /r/graphic_design, the question comes up frequently : as a designer, how do you price your work? Pop philosophy tells us that the cheaper, the better. On the other hand, it also says you get what you pay for. Apparently Pop wasn’t a designer. The thing about conventional wisdom is that it sucks. And, as most designers know, whether they’re weekend hobbyists who have been asked to make an invitation for some family member (“you can’t do it for free?”)or a professional designer unfortunately beleagured with that client, pricing is a real pain. Either you risk alienating potential clients with a price too high, or you’ll undercut yourself and end up making far less than you should’ve. Worse, a price too low a price sets the bar lower for other designers, leading to clients expecting all kinds of ridiculous prices for hours of work. A while back, someone purchased an image I had made and wanted to use it to make a logo for her photography business. I excitedly hammered off a celebratory Facebook post (first mistake) and got the usual litany of “congratulations!” type replies. A week or so later and the client hadn’t paid their deposit, and I, being a new designer (and mildly deficient in the gray matter department) had sent her some

proofs a few days prior with no watermarks on them. Now you say, “Well, duh.” I posted an update to the first Facebook post lamenting the situation, and was mildly suprised by a response I got from a woman whom I had up to that point considered myself friendly with. Her response was acid and to the effect of, “Maybe don’t charge practically nothing for work that people like me, an actual designer, charge thousands of dollars for.” I was a little taken aback by this woman’s response, as, a week or so prior I and a bunch of other friends had donated money to her for her daughter’s procedure which she proclaimed she was woefully low on funds for. A brief verbal skirmish occurred culimating in me blocking her and fuming to my then fiancee for a bit. But here’s the thing: She was absolutely right. Not in her acrid response, but her standpoint. I hadn’t charged the client very much. Granted, the client had chosen a premade image to which I was applying text and changing some colors, but nevertheless, the price was bargain basement cheap. Another friend later backed her up. When you spend countless hours on a project only to find Joe Blow did the same project for less, it’s not irritating. What is irritating is when your next client comes to you and says, “Why so high? Betsy Wetsy on Etsy will do this for $20.”Speaking of Etsy, there are few places to see such a wide range of prices for handmade goods and digital downloads. The former are a relatively new addition to the Etsy retail scope, and thousands of sellers - myself included - have found it the perfect way to make some passive income and get paid for their artwork. Listings are set up in an identical fashion to physical items, but a number of items for sale may be set so that the item renews itself automatically after a sale. If a seller enters a number, say 999, the item will renew 999 times when sold until it finally shows up as sold out. Digital files are uploaded into the item listing and a link to the files are sent to the customer after checkout is complete.

By Jackson Herrier

They can then download the files right from the receipt Etsy provides. This is perfect for digital sales, as there is very little shop maintenance to be done. And prices run the gamut from a dollar or two for digital paper sheets and clipart to tens and hundreds of dollars for high-end professional design and web services. The Etsy forums are teeming with conversations dealing with pricing. Some designers argue against certain price ranges, stating that pricing a digital item too high alienates customers and decreases sales. It seems that digital items, being non-tangible, often are seen as less valuable or less labor intensive to create. Other designers are adamant that prices must be reasonable to allow the designer to not only pay their shop fees, but to pay themselves a living wage. Around and around and around we go with no consensus to be found. States Etsy user Heather Pippins: “Pricing is the HARDEST thing in the world for me, but if I still want to be trucking along years from now, I really had to get over it... Unless you are gathering information that you plan on actually using, what everyone else is doing or not doing is irrelevant, and usually doesn’t make you feel real good.” As a designer, I agree. Graphic design - or any kind of design - takes work just the same as physical handicrafts. Trish O’Connor of EpiclesisConsulting on Etsy agrees, offering the advice that there is a difference between cost and value when it comes to pricing one’s wares: “Price” is about both “cost” and “value.” “Cost” is the total of your expenses, including the return you want for your own time... “Value” is what the customer is willing to pay for it.She adds that pricing can be an experiment in seeing what the market will bear; raising prices until sales decline then decreasing them until sales pick up. She adds that pricing can be an experiment in seeing what the market will bear; raising prices until sales decline then decreasing them until sales pick up. Many artists on Etsy are professionals, making their living off of their shop profits. Some are stay at home moms and hobbyists who are also living off of the income their shops nets.

Others are there as a hobbyists. Regardless, there is one consensus that seems to be universal, and that is that artists deserve compensation for their work, though exactly to what degree seems to be a highly subjective and personal choice for each artist. Many shops with higher prices have very regular sales thanks to a customer base that has been built up, so the argument that low prices sets a low standard may also not be entirely accurate. Still, it is complicated. As a student with virtually no portfolio, the dilemma of pricing has been a sticky one for me as well. Recently I did some freelance work for a startup in a western state. My contact was delightful and we arranged to have business cards designed for the different departments. I debated what to charge then as well, taking into account the size of the company, scope of work I would be doing, number of labor hours and so on. In the end, I charged a low price, but one that I felt was reasonable for my skill level and experience. A design firm would have easily have charged four times what I did, but I felt the fact was mutually acknowledged that the price was fair and the work would be likewise. Was this undercutting other designers? Was I “stealing” work from large design firms or setting the bar lower for established professionals? I would argue in the negative. Do ants pose a threat to tarantulas? They eat different things, they live in different environments. Large corporate design firms can take on the large contracts with other large businesses and charge astronomical prices knowing that those prices are both reasonable for the work and the client. For Mom-and-Pop shops, hobbyists and other tiny ventures, a design firm’s pricing would be out of the question. Is it reasonable for a new designer to respond to the need for cheap design work? Maybe we ought to consider pricing our work in the same category as politics, religion and vaccines: we simply don’t talk about them unless we’re in company that can handle rational discussion. This is a topic of people’s livelihood and I’ve seen casual discussions turn into vitriolic, profanity-laden skirmishes over the

subject of a designer charging too little. According to Jessica Hische, it’s a topic that many of us are hesitant to discuss not only because we don’t want to broadcast our income. Hische is a well known professional in the design field and has been cited by one of my professors for her knowledge of all things design. She has an interesting article on her website regarding pricing standards. She discusses the “setting the bar” concept of pricing, and describes the “Price Domino Effect” that can be tempting for new designers but detrimental to not only themselves as they advance in their careers, but the rest of the design community as a whole. A link to her article entitled “The Dark Art of Pricing” can be found in the credits on the last page of this issue. She cites another resource for pricing standards is the Graphic Artist’s Guild (GAG) Handbook of Pricing and Ethical Guidelines. It is available online and a link has been also been added to the credits. A Reddit user whose username shows as [deleted] states that most clients are fairly removed from the process of valuing designer work. And let’s be honest, as “laymen” (as they say in other fields), most clients simply don’t know what goes into a project from labor and time to software and even the creativity involved. The user goes on to suggesting using a “Theory of Relativity” in pricing: show a client an astronomical price for a large, complex project, then show them a lower priced project next “so they don’t get a sticker shock.” The user relates the strategy as akin to the way a suit salesman first shows a potential customer an expensive suit first before showing them a less expensive one which they will inevitably see as more reasonable than the first. The idea is that if you show a customer a price you may feel is reasonable, but higher than they were expecting, you’ll be in a situation of

When you’re offered a very low budget by a very huge client, you can always feel good about turning it down knowing that you are helping to raise the standards of pricing for others.

negotiating - and may ultimately either lose the client or end up working for less than you’d like.

And, if you ever find yourself in a situation like mine, with another designer ready to swing the

axe at you for a pricing blunder, maybe don’t do what I did and launch into a volley of return

insults and ego posturing. Instead, maybe ask them to weigh in one their standards and

procedures for pricing a project. They’ll either sneer at you - and

that makes them an ass. Or they’ll be flattered bya n00b asking them for advice, and potentially have some sage wisdom

for you. Or, you’ll end up duking it out with a stranger

on Facebook. Either way, you’ll learn some important life lessons. Good luck!

“ “

Rhetoric(you’re doing it wrong)

By John Hammond

This is not rocket science.rhet·o·ricnounthe art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.

synonyms: oratory, eloquence, command of language, way with words “a form of rhetoric”

It seems the art of argumentation has abandoned us. Our contemporary equivalent of dueling, the art of communication has gone by the wayside in favor of social media, asinine abbreviations for words that are already short and 120 word messages. Books are a thing of the past and any lengthy reading is done on devices, the unfortunate latter relegated to the status of “art”. Since when did a library count as art? Worse, when did we come to value celebrity over intellect? When did “he who shouts the loudest” become the way to win an argument? The Donald Trumps and Marco Rubios of today are winning over the hearts and minds of America and quite frankly, it’s sickening. Donald Trump will be our next Eisenhower, and it’s not for his speaking skill. His disjointed, disorganized, erratic speeches are jarring and disconcerting. And quite frankly, the fact he hasn’t been laughed offstage in his year of running for president is concerning. We no longer value cleverness, education, wisdom. Critical thinking and problem solving have become absolete when everything can be “Googled”. And with it goes our ability to communicate. Our vocabulary is being reduced to one-word sentences and as our technology progresses, our communication skills regress exponentially. Rhetoric denotes the use of metaphor,

allusion, repetition, anaphora, antithesis, assonance, consonance... sit one of our youths or even young adults down today and ask them what that means. You will find that most of them have no idea what you’re talking about. The days of artfully constructed addresses are over. Hamilton and Lincoln, Kennedy and Sorenson are gone and with them the last fragments of eloquent, heartfelt, genuine speeches meant to convey faith, integrity and benevolence. In their place has come the vapid, flimsy language we now put in quotes and refer to as “rhetoric”. We have eulogized it as something it once was and never will be again, dismissed into the pointless three ring circus of modern communication to which the most obnoxious speaker goes the spoils. It’s unfortunate. Even the well-meaning, the altruistic, the wise and smart and shrewd are constrained by what we have transformed communication into. No longer valued as a tool of intellectuals, it now sits on a shelf collecting dust with all of our books while we laugh and smirk and shout “YOLO” and insert the words “crunk” into the dictionary and bastardize “literally” into a converse monstrosity of it’s true definition.

Let’s discuss.

1. Logical Fallacies

Common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim.

“

“

Basically, if your intuition tells you someone’s argument is faulty... it probably is. Northern Arizona University was recently shaken by an on-campus shooting involving several students who got into an altercation. What the fight was about remains unknown. What is known is that one student went to his car, produced a firearm and wounded two other students, killing a third. The Daily Sun recently reported a conference in which an ASU professor was discussing whether the shooting “counted” as a mass shooting. The Daily Sun printed a quote from the professor to the effect of, of course it counts. The representative then went on to say it counts to the family of the student who was killed. Pop quiz, kiddos. What’s wrong with the professor’s statement? I’ll give you a second. Give up? The professor used a logical fallacy called appeal to emotion in order to change the subject. It’s also a form of red herring argument, whose point is to divert the conversation. The question was this: does the shooting fall into the category of mass shooting? Can it be qualified as such? The question was NOT: does this shooting have value, importance or some kind of effect (in this case, on the family)? And instead of replying to the latter, the professor chose to use faulty logic to divert the conversation. Whether he did this to demonstrate his empathy (pathos, anyone?) toward the family? Or, because his communication skills need a good dousing with WD-40? If an ASU professor can make a printed statement to a newspaper with a blatant logical fallacy, what does that say for the rest of us? It certainly makes me feel more confident about my cohort’s potential for employment. It astounds me that educated, academic persons are still so inept at communication. If a college student with only an Associate’s degree can explain to you in detail logical flaws in an argument, yet a Masters or PhD professor at a nationally known university cannot edit their statements so as to avoid logical fallacies in a newspaper, what does that say for our standards of communication for this country, much less the world?

2. It helps to get your facts straight.

And preferably BEFORE you spew them onto national media. There’s twisting the truth, and then there’s stating facts that are verifiably false. The former is almost always going to make you look like an idiot when the fact-checkers move in on the case. Take the case of our charismatic mogul businessman, Donald Trump. Apparently the rules don’t apply when you’re in the higher tax brackets. In January 2015, the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake reported a statement from Trump regarding Romney’s failure in his presidential run in 2012. In it, Trump claims that Romney had the 2012 election in the bag before fumbling at the end. The fact is is that, according to Blake’s article and any other source, Romney was never in the lead. But rhetorical rules don’t apply to Trump because in today’s political climate of strutting peacocks and radfems cherry picking their outrage from trees nobody waters, whoever lights the most fireworks wins. Regardless of uttered truth. Nobody fact checks or verifies the stuff they repost, reblog and reshare anyway. As fas as you know, the Food Babe has a PhD in Nutrition.

If you’re going to make statements, maybe make sure they’re true.

If you want to derail your argument and obliterate any confidence in your credibility, try committing a logical fallacy. You’ll at best come off as smarmy, at worst come off as a complete idiot.

3. For god’s sake, stop interrupting the other speaker.

This is the one that drives me to homicidal ideation. I don’t know when the principles of rhetorical chivalry went out of fashion or if there were ever any in place to begin with, but the tactic of interrupting whomever you’re communicating with to interject your own thoughts makes for messy, chaotic conversations. I can’t watch presidential debates anymore because my homeowner’s insurance company has threatened to drop their policy on my house if I keep lighting the floor on fire on debate nights. My political persuasion is irrelevant here; all parties are guilty of the sin of interrupting one another. The moderators are there to make sure the candidates address the questions at hand and not to enforce principles of conversational decency. Not only is it impolite, it makes us all stupider. With our declining attention spans, anything bright and shiny diverts our attention. In conversation, that would mean whoever is louder, more vehement, shocking, etc. Our attention is naturally drawn to whoever does the interrupting and instead of wondering exactly which barn the speaker grew up in, we are fixated on whatever their message is. In the Netflix show House of Cards, there is one episode where the character Claire Underwood goes before a confirmation hearing to discuss her appointment as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Senator Hector Mendoza questions here on the issues at hand. The hearing is disastrously messy (for Claire) as the senator interrupts her statements, talks over her, and eventually pulls out the diversion tactics to deflect and eventually make her look foolish. Claire accuses him of grandstanding. For a perfect example of what transpires when one speaker steamrolls over another, this is a good clip to watch. It’s rude, it’s unsportsmanlike and it makes both parties look bad. If you’re the interrupter, you look like a bully. If you’re the one being interrupted, you look like a pushover. Mary Holland wrote in 1992 in her paper “I Wish You’d Stop Interrupting Me!” that the audience does in fact evaluate a speaker who is interrupting another. The thesis of her article is from a feminist point of view, and she cites Stephen Murray’s 1985 paper on interruptions in noting several different levels of offense when an interruption occurs.

Listeners evaluate the offense based on the speaker’s motives (are they trying to make a point?), whether it is their “turn” to speak, and how severe the interruption is. The more turns you have already taken to speak, the more severe your interruption. Also, if you use an apology in your interruption, somehow that palliates the offense. Another article demonstrates in more eloquent terms exactly what I’m getting at here. “Objectivity in Legal Judgement” is a paper written in 1994 by Heidi Li Feldman in the Michigan Law Review and specifies several concepts on interruptions: first, that ordinarily it is rude to interrupt someone mid-sentence, especially when that person is speaking in a way that indicates they are intent on finishing their statement. However, in conversations between friends or people who are equals, interruptions are less likely to be seen as rude. This includes an exchange in which one person is angry; the angry person is seen as the superior according to Feldman. The idea seems to be that whoever is the superior in the exchange is the one with the right to interruption.

Based on these two papers, we can come up with a list of guidelines in which it an interruption would be appropriate: • if you have a point to make • if you apologize for making the interruption • if you ask to interrupt (eg: “may I interrupt a moment to say...”)• if you are angry with the other person • if there is an emergency worthy of interrupting the speaker

All that is well and good and explains the rationale for why interupting may be approriate, but it does not go into why it is so enfuriating to be interrupted. To cite Bailey et al, interruptions disrupt concentration, completion of tasks (in this case, finishing a sentence) and affect the user’s emotional state. It makes the speaker feel marginalized, and it’s disrespectful. Palahniuk was onto something: most are just waiting (or not) for the other person to shut up.

If kindergarten taught us anything, let it be that we learned to wait our turn.

1. download

2. print files

3. send

Now, that wasn’t so bad was it?

J.H Collaborative hint: click here.

Civil War Chivalry

whoever said there are no rules didn’t fight in the civil war.

Jeriah Hendersonwriter

Civil War ChivalryAll is not fair in love and war: there are indeed rules. Herein is a tale of some rather

ungentlemanly behavior aboard the Confederate ship C.S.S. Alabama

The U.S. steamer Kearsarge was a sloop-of-war ship built in 1861 in Portsmouth Navy Yard in Kittery, Maine and launched on September 11, 1861. She was a propeller driven vessel known as a “screw sloop-of-war”, different from the other classes of ships propelled by paddle wheels. The ship was placed into active service in January of the next year and shortly after deployed to European waters to search for Confederate raiders. Two years later in June 1864 the Kearsarge, then commanded by Captain John Ancrum Winslow, was docked in a river off of the Netherlands. Winslow received a telegram informing him that the CSS Alabama, who he had been pursuing to no avail, was docked in Cherbourg, France for repairs sustained during a skirmish with another U.S. vessel. Upon arrival in Cherbourg on Tuesday the 14th of June, the captain was suprised to learn of the Alabam’s intent to fight, and informed his crew to their similar surprise. All doubt was erased when a telegram arrived corroborating the report from Captain Rafael Semmes stating that he did intend to fight and would meet the Kearsarge the next evening or morning thereafter. Captain Winslow declined to send a reply but prepared his ship and crew for combat. The battle between the two ships was expected - at least on the part of the Alabama’s captain and crew - to be in the bag, so to speak, and that victory would be theirs. Thursday, Friday and then Saturday passed with no appearance of the ship. Sunday morning the crew attended church services unconcerned with the arrival of the Alabama, which they assumed from its delay was not coming. At 10:20 am, twenty minutes after service, the call was made that the Alabama would be seen coming from Cherbourg. The crew flew into a flurry of action as the Kearsarge steamed out to sea, sanding the deck of the ship (possibly to avoid adherence of stains to the wood). The Kearsarge advanced first, moving rapidly and received three glancing blows from the Alabama, now at about 1800 yards away from the Kearsarge. The Kearsarge fired off its first response from the starboard side of the ship, and the battle was on. The two ships circled one another to both control their speed and allow the use of their starboard guns. The Kearsarge was peppered for over fifteen minutest with no casualties as the crew went about their tasks. While the Alabama fired wildly and landed few serious blows, the Kearsarge’s gunners had been instructed to aim carefully and deliberately, and the crew complied to deadly results. At about 18 minutes into the barrage, a shell broke the hull of the ship which injured three crewmen who were immediately taken below deck to be seen to. These three injuries would be the only ones sustained by the Kearsarge’s crew in the entirety of the fight. The Alabama however was not so lucky. Unbeknownst to Semmes, the Kearsarge was lined with a chain plated hull and armed nearly as heavily as the Alabama; though the former was well manned and captained, the Kearsarge was even more so. As the battering from the Kearsarge continued, the Alabama began to limp and lose speed as ship and crew were torn apart by shells which sent splintered wood flying everywhere, maiming those in the way. Captain Semmes in what may have been an act of desperation employed sharpshooters up to the deck to no avail; no one on the Kearsarge was hit. The Alabama was sinking, having lost the use of its rudder and propeller. Captain Semmes, resolving to admit defeat, steamed toward the French coast and ordered his crew to stand down. The Kearsarge’s guns went quiet as the Alabama’s flags were lowered, signaling surrender. Unfortunately, two of her crewmen decided among themselves that they would not surrender to the Yanks, preferring instead to go down with their ship, and fired off two additional shots. It would likely be a self fulfilling

The Battle of the Kearsarge and the Alabama

“Édouard Manet-Kearsarge-Alabama2” by Édouard Manet - 1. From en.wiki2. The Philadelphia Museum of Art. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons. Click title to view original location.

prophecy. Captain Winslow, astounded, ordered another volley of shots to the further detriment of the Alabama and additional lives lost. Someone raised a white flag over the bow of the Alabama, and Captain Winslow reinstated the cease fire. All quiet for the moment. And herein was the first act (if we don’t count the tardy arrival) of blackguardly behavior commited by Captain Semmes. In his report he stated that the Kearsarge comtinued firing upon his ship even after the colors had been struck (the lowering of the flags signifying defeat). He went on to report that it was probably a mistake; that a naval vessel of a Christian nation “could not have done this intentionally.” He ceased to report the two shots fired by his own ship after his surrender - an act that, had he been fighting another captain than Winslow, would have resulted in him, his crew and ship being blasted into oblivion until the Alabama was nothing more than floating planks and bodies. The fight had lasted a few minutes over an hour. The Alabama was allowed to lower its lifeboats and one by the name of Fullam implored Captain Winslow to assist the disabled ship. Winslow demanded confirmation of Semme’s admission of defeat and, receiving a response in the positive, begrudgingly allowed Fullam to return to the sinking ship. Fullam gathered up a few more of his crew and departed in the lifeboat the Deerhound which had escorted the Alabama out to sea before rturning to neutral waters and had reappeared after the the fighting died down. The Deerhound was hailed by Captain Winslow and implored to assist the drowning and injured of the Alabama. The Deerhound complied and having done that, immediately steamed away toward Southampton. Captain Winslow watched the Deerhound scoop up his prisoners and their captain, trusting that the Deerhound would, in the spirit of the rules of warfare and gentlemanly behavior, turn around and return them to him. Not so. The Deerhound slowly disappeared and an officer appealed to Winslow to fire a warning shot - the ship was running off with their prisoners. Winslow denied the request, so sure in his confidence that the Deerhound was merely turning around that he felt no further fire was needed. It was then that a sense of regret overtook captain and crew. They had defeated the terror of sea merchants

and taken down captain and crew with only three injured men, only one of which would be a fatality. The Alabama had been conquered, but the captain and survivors - the spoils of the battle - were escaping, aided by the British. The ecstacy of the victory was tarnished; they had nothing to show for it. This was the second act of dishonesty on the part of the Alabama. Standards of sportsmanlike behavior, or rules of engagement, have existed in some form or another since the Dark Ages. The standards for Civil War engagement began in the form of the Lieber Codes. These codes would be the precursors to the Hague and Geneva Conventions. The rules were placed in order avoid unncessary loss of life outside of combat, facilitate dignity and protect the general health of prisoners. Violations of these codes constitute war crimes. The first war crimes trials included that of Confederate Army Captain Henry Wirz, charged with “malicously, willfully and traitourously conspiring to injure the health... of the United States soldiers being prisoners of war...”These standards are in place for good reason, but if nothing else, because in times of war when indescribable violence and loss of life is commonplace, when murder is the only tool for the success of one side, the only thing that allows us to maintain our respect for ourselves is honor. And for the captain of the Alabama, as well as the Deerhound, this honor is very much tarnished. The battle of Cherbourg between the USS Kearsarge and CSS Alabama is one of the most famous naval battles in Civil War history due to the disparity between the catastophic damage to the Alabama and relatively none to the Kearsarge. Off the record and not mentioned in textbooks is the moral of the story: sometimes we are remembered for brave deeds and service, other times we are remembered by notoriety. Captain Winslow is known as the honorable captain who resisted the urge to obliterate his enemy in the face of mercy and chivalry. Captain Semmes, on the other hand, is known by his miserable loss of ship and crew, and subsequent dishonorable retreat against his word.

Credits

Contributors

and footnotes

& advertising

Pricing Your WorkJessica Hische, The Dark Art of Pricing

Graphic Artist’s Guild Handbook of Pricing and Ethical Guidelines, Available on Amazon

Rhetoric: You’re Doing It Wrong

Brian P. Bailey, with Joseph A. Konstan and John V. Carlis

University of Minnesota Dept of Computer Science & Engineering

The Effects of Interruptions on Task Performance, Annoyance, and Anxiety in the User Interface.

Heidi Li FeldmanObjectivity in Legal Judgement

Michigan Law Review, Vol. 92, No. 5 (Mar., 1994), pp. 1187-1255

Michigan Law Review Association

Mary Holland‘I wish you’d stop interrupting me!’ Interruptions and Assymetries in Speaker-Rights in Equal Encounters.

Journal of Pragmatics 19. April 1992. 451-466. To contribute, please email Jessie@jshdigital.com

with the subject line: ArtStory Contributors. Please include experience in design, history or relevant

subjects as well as a link to a portfolio, blog or other portfolio materials.

To advertise your business, please send an email to the above address with your business name and type

and we will return your inquiry promptly.

Civil War ChivalryA.K. Browne

The Battle of the Kearsarge and AlabamaProject Gutenberg

Naval History and Heritage CommandHistory.Navy.Mil

USS Kearsarge (1862-1894)

Civil War Chivalry(continued)

Michigan Supreme Court Historical SocietyThe Law of War: Restrictive Rules of Engagement and Increased Consequences for Soldiers Prevents Soldier

Action. Alexander Gualdoni

Photography Credits Cover photo by avatarknowmad

c/o Dollar Photo Club

Rhetoric Cover Photo by Gelpi c/o Dollar Photo Club

Civil War Chivalry Main Photo by Jones3006c/o Dollar Photo Club