traditional reassurances of a more personalized space of face-to-face familiarity and craft apprenticeship, seeing only the specter of jobbery and corruption in the awarding of contracts to men without experience in the stone trades. In a world of constant and disorienting change there indeed were enhanced opportunities for charlatans and parasites to prosper in a rapidly expanding and depersonalized marketplace. But the 1866 competition had been advertised in Scientific American as well as in the popular press, and new means of disseminating information opened the door to entrepreneurs who could assemble an effective combination of technology, materials, and labor, and not just to scroungers seeking to enrich themselves from the public purse. Acknowledgements For advice and assistance the author is grateful to Dennis Montagna, National Parks Service; Trevor Plante, NARA; Jennifer Perunko, Historian, National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs; David Gerleman, The Lincoln Project; Michael Trinkley, Chicora Foundation; Paul Carnahan, Vermont Historical Society; Tom Ledoux, Vermont in the Civil War; Janet Stewart, Newsbank/Readex; Chris Lofty, Commonwealth War Graves Commission; Anne Tait; Laurel Gabel; Karen A. Michalec; June Hadden Hobbs; Bob Drinkwater; Harry Pietersma; Andrew Johnson; Mary Donovan; Leighann Neilson; and James McCallum. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the American Culture Association, New Orleans; Association for Gravestone Studies, Schenectady; and the Shannon Lectures in History, Carleton University, Ottawa.
Annual Journal of the Association for Gravestone Studies