psstein

This is definitely an important consideration. There's not much more irritating in an application process than paring down a three page SOP to 500 words (thank you, Indiana HPS).

A way to keep the process on track would be to use tactics similar to those used by panel moderators/reviewers.
Person A gives Person B a writing sample. Person B writes a summary of A's sample as a form of read back. This summary would allow both parties to understand if the sample's basic argument was clearly written and rested on a good foundation of primary sources and secondary works. Person B then would offer feedback in an agree/disagree format. The key here is to avoid sharpshooting or brawling. The objective is to enable Person A to make the best form of an argument, even if that argument is antithetical to Person B's take on the topic at hand. Person B would end with a handful of general recommendations that would enable Person A to write a stronger piece. General recommendations for this exercise are appropriate as it is, IMO, better to avoid by miles any potential boundaries of academic/intellectual integrity. An example of a general recommendation is that rather than striking out word-limit killing prepositional phrases and passive verbal constructions, one instead recommends "finding ways to write more efficiently and use the savings in words to detail crucial arguments." The crucial elements here are trust and professionalism. If Person A wants to take an "orthodox" approach to the origins of the Cold War, then Person B needs to act in good faith by bellying up to the bar and supporting that effort, even if Person B agrees with everything Bruce Cummings has ever written or said about John Lewis Gaddis. Concurrently, Person A needs to approach the exercise with a level of sensitivity to the ongoing historiographical debates over the origins of the Cold War with a commitment to professional "objectivity" (what ever the heck that is). Still, there will be risks to both parties, especially if there's a great disparity in levels of skill. What then?
 

My department had two alumni come in and speak on non-academic career options. If anyone's interested, I can try to dig up either the recording or the slides. Just send me a PM.
As for private sector jobs, like all of us, I'd like to have a tenured academic job. I hope I do, but I'd live with working in the private sector. Academia's lack of defined hours are both a blessing and a curse.
As harsh as it sounds, one sometimes needs to choose between continuing down a non-productive path (i.e. adjuncting or one temporary position after another) and leaving the field entirely. Unfortunately, some very good scholars get stuck making that choice.

I want the summer to end.
I'm also absolutely racked with anxiety over discussing my desire to leave Wisconsin and reapply to different programs.

This is definitely an important consideration. There's not much more irritating in an application process than paring down a three page SOP to 500 words (thank you, Indiana HPS).

Yes, but not everyone wants to abandon doing historical work for non-history positions.... One has to be willing to leave their history career behind to be willing to go into kinds of jobs (unless they're willing to continue research/writing outside of their regular work hours).

Also bear in mind that some programs ask for different formats for the SoP from the standard two-pager. It can be hard to adapt your SOP to those formats -- which I found out the hard way when I was rejected from all of those schools.

I agree to the comments on history Ph.Ds in the private market. 
Getting a Ph.D., in any social science or humanities gives you an incredible array of skills. At my school we have a AHA career diversity grant where we gave out a career diversity fellowship. We're currently organizing current Ph.D. holders from a variety of fields to come talk, resume workshops, interviews, etc. Like I said, a lot of graduates at my school work for presses, NGOs, non-profits, historic preservation, or state, local, and city government.

I agree with you. The "don't do it" talk really applies more to people who see graduate school as "the next step" or think that it's a way to avoid the real world. It's not as though there's a swell of unemployed history PhDs wandering the streets, asking for money. Yes, there's a significant underemployed contingent, but saying that it's "academic job or bust" reinforces the idea that any non-academic route is a failure. There are multiple history PhDs in the private sector who have better pay, better benefits, and far less stress than 99% of tenured/TT professors. 
Did they "fail?" I doubt it.

I started off with applying to 12 programs, and now I've shortened it to 5. 5 really good applications is a lot better than 12 subpar or moderate ones.

From my end, I'm not certain what you'd gain from a MA, but maybe I'm not seeing something.
No, don't worry about phone calls. Email is fine. To all lurkers: don't do what I did and apply blindly. It was one of the stupidest things I did in the whole process.
I would caution you against applying to too many programs: I applied to 9 programs, which was about 4-5 too many.

From my end, I'm not certain what you'd gain from a MA, but maybe I'm not seeing something.
No, don't worry about phone calls. Email is fine. To all lurkers: don't do what I did and apply blindly. It was one of the stupidest things I did in the whole process.
I would caution you against applying to too many programs: I applied to 9 programs, which was about 4-5 too many.

The answer never changes   If you cannot absolutely see  yourself doing anything else, then you can try the PhD route.  If you can see yourself doing other things, which you obviously can, then no.  If you don't try other things first, you will likely spend time in a PhD program wondering "what if i done this?  Or that?" 
It is a consuming process that affects your entire life and many of the relationships you have at the moment. Do you want to spend a year away working in Italian archives, which I've heard aren't exactly the best organized? Are you willing to keep up with your readings during the holiday "breaks" that you're supposed to have to spend time with your family, only instead to be reading to stay on top of coursework and studying for the exams? Are you willing to bite your tongue when you receive feedback from professors (and reviewers) that make you feel defeated (although generally not the intention) or that you just don't like? Do you have the patience to explain 1000x to your (non-academic) family and friends exactly what is it that you're doing and how you're actually being paid (and justify why) to study what you love? Are you willing to endure 2-3 days of conferences with 4-6 sessions a day while schmoozing in between? Are you willing to be told by a superstar you admire in your field that your project isn't good enough? There are really a lot of questions out there that I can keep asking that relate to the reality of being a PhD student and academia.  The process itself will continue to challenge your desire to finish.  There is no "I defeated that obstacle, now there won't be any more..."  There will always be something that will make you doubt (and that actually extends into academic careers as well).  I've been challenged "bigly" after not getting in after 2 cycles of PhD admissions and after failing my first PhD exams but my support network (academics AND non-academics) told me to give it all another shot. I did.  And I'm glad that I did.  
Also consider the reality that the PhD is really, really tough on those who do not have enough financial resources beyond their stipend (i.e. savings, Bank of the Family).  There are so many hidden fees/costs that pop up over the course of the PhD.

From my end, I'm not certain what you'd gain from a MA, but maybe I'm not seeing something.
No, don't worry about phone calls. Email is fine. To all lurkers: don't do what I did and apply blindly. It was one of the stupidest things I did in the whole process.
I would caution you against applying to too many programs: I applied to 9 programs, which was about 4-5 too many.

I second this. After my first year a bunch of the cohort seemed to be able to finance round-the-world trips and then I realized that they'd just spent 9 months living rent free courtesy of Family Cash. I make up for it by applying for fellowships while I scroll through their "beach life" instagram accounts (only kind of joking). I would also add that one thing I've seen get to people is the culture of academia--you can ❤️ research and teaching etc but that's only part of this place, and at my school the "I Love History!" folk don't really cope that well. If you're reading these boards I'd be very attentive to the advice you get from anyone attending the schools you're applying to--if someone says "I'm not sure that person really takes students" or "this school isn't strong in your area" then pay attention. It doesn't matter that you received a friendly email from a faculty member, they don't always know what's up in the department as a whole--current grad students are the most reliable source of accurate information. 

Why I don't like that subreddit in a nutshell, actually.

As an old adviser says, the defining characteristic of a historian is that they are congenitally immune to boredom. 

I would recommend two things:
First, that you spend some time thinking through why very few faculty members focus on this particular topic and the impact of that fact on your job prospects at the other end of your degree.
Second, that you broaden your horizons; the scholars who study the intersection of sexuality and power, in Insular contexts and elsewhere, are manifold.

Developing work ethic, stamina and tolerance for tedious tasks is the key to getting through your doctoral exams.  After 75 books, things do become a bit.... dare I say it? Mundane.

Send me one. I'd be interested in seeing how it's progressed.

Just to echo what @telkanuru and @historygeek have said so far, you probably need Latin. You might want to consider a MA first, preferably one with some financial support.
I would also add that, given the state of the job market, if you're lucky enough to get a TT position, chances are it's not going to be somewhere particularly livable. Many of the available jobs are at R2/R3 universities in small towns (e.g. Kingsville, TX). You have some control over where you go to graduate school, which can mean not going. You have almost no control over where you end up, all one can do is give him/herself the best chance.

As of 08/08/18, the history forum has over 40k posts. 
Please consider the advantages of
using the BB's search button. https://forum.thegradcafe.com/search/ and contributing to existing threads, especially the thread for the current application season, so that current and future users will have common points of reference Here's the thing. Academic historians distinguish themselves from other professions in the Ivory Tower in many ways, not the least of which are:
Self-reliance; The ability to generate meaningful questions; and The ability to do research in support of answering those questions. FWIW, while there are ongoing conversations over generational sensibilities IRT work, training, and interpersonal relationships (the boomer/xer/millenial/z "debate"), for better and for worse, professional academic historians continue to do things the old way. This old way includes an unstated expectations that aspiring graduate students are going to do a significant, if not exhaustive,  amount of self-motivated legwork before asking questions.
ETA: If one reads extensively, one will come across "first time" posts by "long time lurkers" who share their elation at getting into Happy Land University with full funding and their appreciation for the wealth of information they found in existing threads. Is it just by accident that they get to where they want to go without starting new threads?
 

Agreed. Your lack of Latin would be catastrophic for your application to any worthwhile program. I would recommend not applying until you've sorted that out.

Your package is quite standard for a decent, well-funded program.  You're going to a program where you think you can get a lot of intellectual support for your research interests.
Talk to the current graduate students about finding extra money for summers and external fellowships.  They've been there!  They will absolutely share their experiences, applications, etc. with you if you just ask!   In fact, that is an EXCELLENT question for a first year to ask to start building collegial relationships.
Also, I beg you, please don't think of your stipend spread over 9 months.  Spread it over 12 months and stick with it.  If you need to live with a roommate instead of your own place to make it work, so be it.  You will thank yourself later that you have money to live on for the summer instead of scrambling to find a part-time job to pay the rent. Too many graduate students make this financial mistake.

Stay the course and go to UC Davis.
Double check on tuition remission for the summer quarter. You may not get stipend checks during the summer but you still may be able to take classes without being responsible for the costs.