More handpicked essays just for you.
The american civil war
The American Civil War In the United States
The American Civil War In the United States
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Q: How did Winfield Scott’s and George McClellan’s politics and prior military experience inform or influence their military strategy and approach to the war? Both Scott and McClellan shared identical opinions about the nature of the rebellion, which they regarded as the product of extremism on both sides. In addition, they both possessed the instinctive moderation of the gentleman, not the fiery passion of the ideologue. They displayed a persistent faith in the power of sweet reason, voiced with dignified firmness, to overcome most human problems. (Pg. 23 & 26) They both believed in the power of restraint and patience. Q: What was Winfield Scott’s Anaconda Plan? The Anaconda Plan was a military strategy he proposed early in the war. It was
basically a comprehensive, strategic and thorough plan to defeat the Confederacy at the start of the war. Q: Why was McClellan eventually chosen to lead and what was his plan? President Lincoln summoned Major General McClellan because his recent victories in western Virginia marked him as a commander of apparent energy and brilliance. Moreover, the Northern press lionized McClellan as “the Napoleon of the present war” and his presence in the nation’s capital seemed to promise swift military action. McClellan’s perspective on the war was that he saw the need for a crafted, conciliatory strategy that would impress Unionist sentiment and avoid driving Southerners further into the grip of the Slave Power. (Pg. 31) McClellan was not simply trying to defeat the Confederacy’s field armies, but also “to display such an overwhelming strength, as will convince all our antagonists of the utter impossibility of resistance.” He believed that a strategy of crushing, complete military success, combined with a rigidly protective policy to as to private policy and unarmed persons, and a lenient course as to common soldiers was the best way to achieve the success that he wanted. (Pg. 32) Q: Why was conciliation rejected? The conciliatory policy was rejected because the area of hostilities were too far-flung and the federal government was too small. In addition, President Lincoln had a managerial style presidency and that lent itself to a decentralized system of decision-making. He often said that “my policy is to have no policy.” He habitually avoided committing himself to any particular doctrine and usually just endorsed whatever course seemed to be the most effective at the time. (Pg. 35)
Sears’ thesis is the Union could have won the war faster. McClellan was an incompetent commander and to take the initiative to attack an defeat the Confederate army. The Army of Northern Virginia, under...
In both Things and Forrest Gump the main character goes to the Vietnam War and leaves their family. In both of the stories the main character creates a strong bond with their fellow soldiers. Tim O’Brien, in Things, becomes friends with Jimmy Cross, Mitchell Sanders, Kiowa, Norman Bowker, Henry Dobbins, and Rat Kiley. In Vietnam, Forrest Gump becomes friends with Bubba and Lieutenant Dan. Both stories tell how close friends died and how the main character reacts. Along with the sad memories there are happy memories as well. O’Brien says that in their free time they played checkers and told stories to get their minds off the war. In Forrest Gump, Forrest played ping-pong and would play in front of his friends to entertain them. Him and Bubba
Stewart R. W. (2005). American Military History (Vol. 1). The United States Army and the
...didn’t over step his authority or attempt to subvert the army for his own purposes. Instead, George Washington sets the example of the military commander who was subservient to civilian political leadership. He also showed patience and coolness in the face of adversity. On many occasions in the book, the author cites Washington’s expressions of doubt and fears of failure, yet Washington never showed fear or doubt in action in front of his troops.
...e gun, it seemed, the greater the owner‘s pride in it.” (McCullough 33) The Continental army certainly did not look like an army yet these people were brought together in this fight for freedom and prevailed even winning the support of Americans who had no hope the British would be defeated.” Merchant Erving had sided with the Loyalists primarily because he thought the rebellion would fail. But the success of Washington‘s army at Boston had changed his mind as it had for many” (McCullough 108). The reader must comprehend the power of this accomplishment for the rag-tag army. “Especially for those who had been with Washington and who knew what a close call it was at the beginning-how often circumstance, storms, contrary winds, the oddities or strengths of individual character had made the difference- the outcome seemed little short of a miracle.” (McCullough 294).
- - -, ed. "The Anti-War Movement in the United States." English.Illnois.edu. Ed. Oxford Companion to American Military History. 1st ed. Vers. 1. Rev. 1. Oxford Companion to American Military History, 1999. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. .
The question was whether the USA should pursue the same policy regarding communism in the Far East as in Europe, or should it concentrate on making sure that the Soviets couldn?t expand westward? Despite being a little too optimistic, MacArthur?s decisive policy addressed the global threat of communism better because it acknowledged that the U.S. shouldn?t just ignore one communist sector of the world, and because it recognized that we should eliminate an enemy that we are inevitably bound to come into conflict with.
The book ‘For Cause and Comrades’ is a journey to comprehend why the soldiers in the Civil War fought, why they fought so passionately, and why they fought for the long period of time. Men were pulling guns against other men who they had known their whole lives. McPherson’s main source of evidence was the many letters from the soldiers writing to home. One of the many significant influences was how the men fought to prove their masculinity and courage. To fight would prove they were a man to their community and country. Fighting also had to do with a duty to their family. Ideology was also a major motivating factor; each side thought they were fighting for their liberty. The soldier’s reputations were created and demolished on the battlefield, where men who showed the most courage were the most honored. Religion also played an important role because the second Great Awakening had just occurred. Their religion caused the men who thought of themselves as saved to be fearless of death, “Religion was the only thing that kept this soldier going; even in the trenches…” (McPherson, p. 76) R...
The Union Army was able to match the intensity of the Confederacy, with the similar practice of dedication until death and patriotism, but for different reasons. The Union soldiers’s lifestyles and families did not surround the war to the extent of the Confederates; yet, their heritage and prosperity relied heavily on it. Union soldiers had to save what their ancestors fought for, democracy. “Our (Union soldiers) Fathers made this country, we, their children are to save it” (McPherson, 29). These soldiers understood that a depleted group of countries rather than one unified one could not flourish; “it is essential that but one Government shall exercise authority from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific” (Ledger, 1861).
The Vietnam War was a rough time for many soldiers. Memories of home, loved ones, comfort, happiness, a normal life, everything was left behind to do their duties as soldiers. They carried with them many mementos of their life at home; that way they had some kind of life to hang onto to give them the hope and comfort they needed to keep themselves pushing forward. Though, many others have done the same and kept objects to hold onto to remind themselves that there is hope and that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Despite the Vietnam War and World War I taking place during different time periods, these two wars are extremely similar because of the way they are presented in history.
...rned the essential plans that a leader would need to lead him troops. He also had the morale and spirits to keep the troops ready to fight for the freedom they wanted, as well as his ability to command such troops in placement and tactics.
This essay assesses the overall strengths and weaknesses of Kennan as a shaper of United States foreign policy. Beginning with a discussion of the political environment within which foreign policy decisions were made, the essay continues with an appraisal of Kennan’s strengths—namely, his creation of a dispassionate, pragmatic and interests-based conception of national security—and his weaknesses—namely, the abuse this conception experienced as a result of Kennan’s own inability to limit it. Last, the essay concludes with an overall assessment of Kennan’s performance suggesting that perhaps these weaknesses are better attributed to the aforementioned environment in which Kennan was operating. It should be noted that little discussion is afforded to an analysis of Kennan’s views and ideas, but rather, emphasis is narrowed to consider his role in the policy process and the role of his ideas within it.
However, he knew that American involvement was inevitable, so he and his advisors agreed that the best way to rapidly mobilize the economy was to give industry an incentive to move quickly. One way the government encouraged companies to help prepare for the war effort was through cost-plus contracts. These contracts meant that the government covered the cost for a company to produce military goods as well as paid them a percentage of the profit. The goal of the cost-plus contracts was to encourage companies to switch the production of their businesses to help manufacture more military supplies; and the more a company produces, and the faster it accomplishes its task, the more money it earns.... ... middle of paper ...
It is far easier for us in the present than it was for those at Gettysburg, to look back and determine the path that the leaders should have taken. As students, studying battles such as this, we have the advantage of hindsight, knowing the outcome. Nonetheless, we can still learn valuable lessons from it. To do so, this analysis will explore some of the decisions of the leaders at Gettysburg, and how they were affected by the operational variables. This essay will scrutinize some of the leaders at Gettysburg, and the impact of their actions. The outcome of this analysis will show that what was true in 1863 is still true today. While many variables are vital to a successful army on the battlefield, none should be neglected. Each variable discussed in this examination will prove to be important, but the information battle will be paramount in the battle of Gettysburg.
GEN McClellan may not have been a great war time General but he excelled at training Soldiers, getting his men ready to fight and raising the morale of the Armies he commanded. Multiple historians and various political leaders agreed on this point about McClellan. In a statement, President Lincoln told John Hayes,” There is no man in the army who can man these fortifications and lick these troops into shape half as well as he” . As it can be seen from a statement from a prominent figure such as the President during the war, GEN McClellan was a Soldiers General, but the ability to get political leaders on his side was another story. His cautious attitude towards war soured his reputation with both congress. McClellan’s biggest political obstacle was Edward Stanton, the Secretary of War. He started to work on a petition that would end McClellan’s career.