Being the hot headed man no one allied with, P.T. Beauregard got things done. The military was very dependant on P.T. Beauregard because of his great leadership artistry during the Mexican American War. Because of his skills/ expertise in the Mexican American War, from 1861 to 1865 the Confederate Army depended on him for his leadership skills during the Civil War.
Beauregard was recognized for his great engineering skills during prior conflicts in the Mexican War. “ Drawn largely from the top of their West Point classes the engineers in the corps before the Civil War include many excellent military strategist who rose to leadership rules during the War” (Hedlund). As Beauregard rose up in leadership roles, he became so well known that eventually
…show more content…
Pierre was an engineer working for General Winfield Scott. For several years, he supervised the building of coastal fortifications, he was the chief engineer incharge of draining New Orleans from 1858 to 1861. Beauregard helped fortify the capture of the states. Pierre also worked on alot of engineering projects, defenses against the floods of the Mississippi River, building and maintaining forts in Florida, Improving shipping channels at the South of the Mississippi River. Before the outbreak of the Civil war P.T. was put in charge of saving the New Orleans Federal Customs house from sinking into soft mud. Since Beauregard successfully saved the house he was praised. Pierre was assigned superintendent of West point …show more content…
Pierre was a very brave man and a great leader. P.T. feared that The Union troops would run them over so he rose a flag and rode with his colour filled flag high encouraging them. His work here made Davis jealous and he wants Pierre back to where he was. He promoted Pierre to full General as of July first. Beauregard was a difficult man to make happy. He publicly criticized Jefferson Davis,a dn said if he had not interfered with his work the South would not have only won the First Bull Run but they would have advanced on Washington. P.T.’s actions made Jefferson very angry, but he was in a difficult position. Because Pierre was loved so much he decided to take he down to second in command of the Army of the Mississippi. There were so many more battle that Pierre had been
General Lee said, to be a good soldier you must love the army, to be a good general you must be prepared to order the death of the thing you love, and therein lies the great trap of soldiering. When you attack you must hold nothing back." Thomas J. Jackson was both a good soldier and a good general. In the Mexican War he fought with all his heart for his country. When the Civil War came, he was a general. He never hesitated to send his men forward. He held nothing back. George McClellan also fought with all his heart for his country in the Mexican War. When the time came to send his men forward in the Civil War, he couldn’t do it. He loved the army to much to order its death.
When we were first introduced to Chamberlain he gave a remarkably motivating speech to over one hundred starved and angry soldiers. With his passionate and honest plea he was able to break through their barriers of hate and betrayal and inspire them to fight for a belief even they could relate to. This act alone convinced me that this man was a talented leader and would have an impressive impact on The Battle of Gettysburg.
When we compare the military leaders of both North and South during the Civil War, it is not hard to see what the differences are. One of the first things that stand out is the numerous number of Northern generals that led the “Army of the Potomac.” Whereas the Confederate generals, at least in the “Army of Northern Virginia” were much more stable in their position. Personalities, ambitions and emotions also played a big part in effective they were in the field, as well as their interactions with other officers.
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.
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
General Winfield Scott took part in the War of 1812 and by the end he had moved up to being the Brevet Major General. In this he had gotten the nickname old Fuss and feathers from an award he got for teaching discipline. One of Scott's greatest battles in the Mexican War was the Battle at Vera Cruz where he made a plan that won them the battle. Later in the Civil War he will create a plan called the “Anaconda” plan in which the North blockades or “strangles” the South. (PBS)
...ew the war he was fighting was not an epic Napoleonic battle but a war of attrition. He proceeded with his plan to slowly shrink Confederate territory and destroy Lee's army to the point that the South could no longer mount a viable defense. Eventually Grant succeeded and Lee's men were all that remained of the Confederate army. Grant surrounded them in trenches at Richmond until Lee was forced to surrender.
George Washington was selected Commander in Chief of the Continental Army because of his courage and bravery, his ability to motivate and command respect from his followers, and his strategic ability in battle. His reputation as a daring and successful leader inspired confidence and loyalty in his followers. If it weren't for George Washington, it would be a different America today.
“Why did the North win the Civil War?” is only half of a question by itself, for the other half is “Why did the South lose the Civil War?” To this day historians have tried to put their finger on the exact reason for the South losing the war. Some historians blame the head of the confederacy Jefferson Davis; however others believe that it was the shear numbers of the Union (North). The advantages and disadvantages are abundant on either sides of the argument, but the most dominate arguments on why the South lost the war would be the fact that state’s rights prevented unification of the South, Jefferson Davis' poor leadership and his failure to work together with his generals, the South failed to gain the recognition of the European nations, North's superior resources made the outcome inevitable, and moral of the South towards the end of the war.
General. He tried to continue with Johnston’s plan, but failed to stop the advance of Union troops. He
“On leadership” was written by John W. Gardner (The Free Press, New York, 1990). He used seventeen chapters to explain and describe essential components for the leadership should be in a successful organization. This book not only has significant influence now, but also for the future. Below are my understanding about this book, which was divided into two parts. For the first part, I will pick up some perspectives which influence me most from this book. For the second part, which is my comments and critique about this book.
John W. Gardner born 1912, had a varied and productive career as an educator, public official, and political reformer. Gardner's belief in society's potential was his guiding force, but he was wary of the dangers of complacency and inaction. Perhaps best known as the founder of the lobby Common Cause, he was the author of several best-selling books on the themes of achieving personal and societal excellence.
Leadership is the ability to influence employees to voluntarily pursue organizational goals. Leadership is vision, enthusiasm, love, trust, passion and consistency. Management is to pursue organizational goals efficiently and effectively by integrating the work of people through planning, organizing, leading, and controlling organizations resources. Leadership and management are not the same. They are not interchangeable. Leadership is coping with change and management is coping with complexity (Williams 444).
Grant remained a child at heart throughout his life, and seems never to have realized that he was one. His faith in the goodness of humanity was unbounded, and he was taken advantage of. His simplicity of nature was remarkable, yet this simplicity was the mainspring of his success; certainly it was the first asset of his generalship. While McClellan could see nothing beyond his own operations and Halleck nothing outside of his textbooks, Grant saw things as they were, uncontaminated by his ideas or anyone elses. He saw that the entire problem of winning the civil war was nothing more than an equation between pressure and resistance. The side which pressed the hardest along the lines of least resistance was going to win.
Lee is an excellent general for our newly created Confederacy. He is not only a national hero and in a very positive public light, he is also brilliant and valiant, knowing when to strict vital blows on the enemy. Even considering Lee’s weaknesses, he is still the General we need to lead the Confederacy to victory.