As one of the most controversial figures in the Civil War, General Jubal Early led the Confederacy in its most threatening attack against the Union capital. He was not a typical Confederate general since he displayed no religious faith, had few friends, and lacked manners (Axelrod 125). He was not likable as a person, yet seemed to demand respect as a general. He refused to admit defeat, often “rising from the ashes of his own failures” (Swisher). Early’s most admirable quality was his intense loyalty. From the time Virginia seceded to his death, Early devoted his life to fighting for the independence of the South. General Early was no stranger to the military at the outset of the war. Showing sympathy for independence, Early desperately wanted to leave West Point to help Texas gain independence. He believed that if Texas wanted to be free from Mexico, humanity demanded that he helped (Axelrod 127). However, his father forbid it. Early fought his first battle during the Second Seminole War at Locha-Hatchie Ford. He later admitted that he was “shooting but the enemy was invisible” (Early). Because of his experience during this war, he resigned from the military and gained admission to the bar. In the US-Mexican War, he did not participate in combat, but instead was made the military governor of Monterrey. He served this position until he fell ill with rheumatism, a severe disease that would continue to effect him (Axelrod 126). Originally, Early did not want the war to begin. He was loyal to the Union, believing it was “‘the fairest fabric of government ever created’” (Swisher). As a representative in the Virginia Secession Convention, Early voted for unionism; however, he was outnumbered. Showing his extreme loyalty once agai... ... middle of paper ... ...Jubal Early.” Confederate Veteran. Jan 1894: 113. Book. Early, Jubal. Jubal Early’s Memoirs: Autobiographical Sketch and Narrative of the War Between the States. Baltimore, MD: Nautical & Aviation Pub. Co. of America, 1989. Print. "General Jubal Early is Dead." Detroit Free Press (1858-1922): 3. Mar 03 1894. ProQuest. Web. 30 Mar. 2014 . Secondary Sources: Axelrod, Alan. Generals South, Generals North: The Commanders of the Civil War Reconsidered. Guilford, CT: Lyons/Globe Pequot, 2011. Print. Bushong, Millard K. Old Jube: A Biography of General Jubal A. Early. Boyce, Va: Carr Pub. Co, 1955. Print. Cooling, Benjamin F. Jubal Early's Raid on Washington, 1864. Baltimore, Md: Nautical & Aviation Pub. Co. of America, 1989. Print. Osborne, Charles. Jubal: The Life and Times of General Jubal A. Early. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 1992. Print.
The Battle of Antietam could have been a devastating and fatal blow to the Confederate Army if Gen. McClellan acted decisively, took calculated risks, and veered away from his cautious approach to war. There are many instances leading up to the battle and during the battle in which he lacks the necessary offensive initiative to effectively cripple and ultimately win the war. This paper is intended to articulate the failure of Mission Command by GEN McClellan by pointing out how he failed to understand, visualize, describe and direct the battlefield to his benefit.
Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America, showed weaknesses within his leadership which may have contributed to the confederacy’s loss and the unions win . Davis failed in three vital ways. These ways were: his relations with other confederate authorities and with the people, as well as in his fundamental concept of his job as president and in his organization and specific handling of his role as commander in chief . Davis failed in maintaining communication with leaders and with his people, often unable to admit when he is wrong which led to lack organization in his role . In addition, Davis was a conservative leader, not a revolutionary one which meant that his strength was often in protocol and convention rather than in innovation . Studying each of these aspects that represented a weakness in Jefferson Davis’s leadership, Lincoln in comparison provided more admirable and outstanding qualities within his leadership which in many ways affected the outcome of the war
In addition to a crumbling national identity, the necessities of war diminished morale among citizens of the Confederacy. Early on, the South believed that Europe would a...
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).
Made famous by Theodore Roosevelt’s volunteer Rough Rider’s and the Buffalo Soldiers, the Battle of San Juan Hill (July 1, 1898), also known as The Battle of San Juan Heights, was the bloodiest battle of the Spanish American War. After landing on the beachhead, the US V Corps under the command of Major General William Shafter fought their way west toward the port town of Santiago. After an indecisive clash at Las Guasimas on June 24, Shafter readied his men to take the strategic heights around the city, while Cuban insurgents blocked any Spanish reinforcements arriving on the roads to the north, in what would be one of the most decisive battles of America’s “Splendid Little War.” 1
Palfrey, Francis Winthrop, The Army in the Civil War: The Antietam and Fredericksburg. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1885.
Henry Steele Commager’s essay “The Defeat of the Confederacy: An Overview” is more summary than argument. Commager is more concerned with highlighting the complex causality of the war’s end rather than attempting to give a definitive answer. Commager briefly muses over both the South’s strengths
The Battle of Antietam on September 17th, 1862 was the single, most bloodiest day in American History, where more than 23,000 men became casualties of war. General George Brinton McClellan’s inability to use Mission Command, as a warfighting function was a key reason this battle did not end the American Civil War. An analysis of General McClellan’s Mission Command operational process will show how his personality, bias, and fear were detrimental to the outcome of the Battle of Antietam.
Admiral William Frederick Halsey Jr. (Bull) (American Naval Officer who led vigorous campaigns during World War II, 1882-1959)
Luvaas J., & Nelson H.W. (1987). The U.S. Army War College Guide to the Battle of Antietam The Maryland Campaign of 1862. (pg. 302). 3/21/2014
Colonel John Singleton Mosby led the 43rd battalion of the Virginia Cavalry, known as Mosby’s Raiders. Mosby was born to an old Virginia family in Powhatan County, Virginia on December 6, 1833. He attended University of Virginia and studied law while in jail. He said, “My father was a slaveholder and I still a strong affection for the slaves who nursed and played with me in my childhood. That the prevailing sentiment in the South not peculiar to myself but one prevailing in all South toward an institution which we now thank Abraham Lincoln for abolishing.” in his autobiography The Memoirs of Colonel John S. Mosby.
...ld not protect the interest of the Southern states. Coupled with the hostilities, lack of votes for Lincoln from the South and disregard for the constitutional protection of slavery is a justifiable reason from the Southern leaders to secede from the Union.
George Browm Tindall, David Emory Shi. American History: 5th Brief edition, W. W. Norton & Company; November 1999
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...
During the period of 1839 to 1846 in Texas history, the infant Republic built and powered a small force of naval vessels against the new nation of Mexico. As with the majority of all wars, navies are never the main military power that settles the conflict but are the strongest of contributors (Wells 2.) This occurred in the Texas War of Independence, where the Texas Navy has little indication in text but was an important asset to the victory. Reasons for such an asset being overlooked are based upon the notable actions that took place ashore in the heroic defense of the Alamo and the victorious battle of San Jacinto lead by the Commander in Chief of the Texas Republic, Sam Houston (Davis 56.) Also, the lack of dramatic sea battles with the few vessels employed in the navy was another reason for their accomplishments to go unnoticed (Navy Department 2.) Above all the importance of seapower was but little understood during the time period and was not fully appreciated until the late 19th century after the publicized works of Mahan were noted by the powers of the world (Wells i.) As understood by the former Commodore of the Navy, Moore, "the Texas Navy was the difference between a Texas reconquered by Mexico in 1843 and a Texas Republic admitted into the Union in 1846 (Navy Department 1.)"