Military Leadership in the Union Armies Term Paper

Military Leadership in the Union Armies - Term Paper Example The battle continued for four years from year 1861 to 1865 and then ended with the surrender of the Confederate and outlawed slavery throughout the Country.1 Union party was served by more than 2.2 million military men, whereas approx 1.4 million people fought from Confederate side. The military personnel had gained professional military education and worked under the leadership of officers from diverse backgrounds. These military officers were professionally trained West Pointers, businesses persons and political officials. Initially confederate had strong leadership, but Union had led by poor commanders. Later on, Union replaced such officials and employed adept and potential military men who had command experience, thereby brought victory to the Union.2 This paper analyzes battlefield strategy and leadership of Military officials in Union Army which led the forces to defeat Confederate men. The US Civil War never faced shortfall of enthusiasm because many young people wanted to jo in the army in 1861. All these people volunteered because they were excited to fight in defense of the Union military force, in anticipation of quick promotions as lead by their experience. The trouble created in the process of volunteering was a severe lack of leadership, planning and organization at the loftiest levels.3 The American Civil War supplied a multitude of commanders and sensible comparison amid battle conditions and issues. The Union military army had a specific requirement for efficacious armed combat commanders during the Civil War and those commanders and officers were essentially needed to be specifically educated and well trained to lead the people in war which would in turn defend and uphold the new nation. This unique need was realized and understood by government and politicians, so they made efforts for military training.4 Though, all military leaders had not developed through gaining formal military education and training. Many cells of professional officials were formed by the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis and the United States Military Academy at West Point. These cells were comprised of professional military officers who had complete knowledge of military science so as to create an intense impact on the demeanor of the American Civil War. Throughout the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was the President of United States and at the same time served as the Commander-in-Chief of the Union armed forces, the highest-ranking military officer .5 The military personnel had the authority to elect the junior officers, whereas the state governors nominated the senior officers, and the President Lincoln nominated the generals.6 The significant military leaders for the Union army included Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman, George B. McClellan, George Meade, John C. Fremont, Ambrose Burnside, Joseph Hooker, Irvin McDowell, and Winfield Scott.7 This paper throws light especially on the role played by Generals George B. McClellan, Ulysses S. Grant, George Meade, and William T. Sherman. During the American Civil War, George Brinton McClellan was a major general. He served as the general-in-chief of the Union Army for a short period from November 1861 to March 1862, and coordinated the renowned Army of the Potomac. In the beginning of the war, McClellan’s attempts for raising a well-trained and devised army for the Union had been very important. Peninsula Campaign initiated by McClellan in 1862 got failed, as his army receded due to

Australian Federal Elections Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Australian Federal Elections - Essay Example Put another way, the winning candidate is the "most preferred". An electoral system is biased by the absence of universal adult suffrage that would represent a kind of bias, and most the notion of "one vote, one value" should be implemented in order to avoid a further potential source of bias. The non-partisan bias means is non-proportional representation i.e., differences between the proportion of votes obtained by a party and the proportion of seats won by it. In the Australian context, such bias is most important in the House of Representatives, although even in the Senate a party could obtain 10 percent or more of the vote without winning a seat (depending on the preferences of other parties). This is an example of what is sometimes called a minor party bias. This type of bias is even more obvious in the House of Representatives. In 1998 the National Party obtained 16 seats (10. 8 per cent of the total) with only 5.7 per cent of the first preference vote. There are two chief differences between the situations of the Nationals and the two other parties: the first is that the National's vote is more geographically concentrated and the second is the fact that the Nationals' and Liberals' preferences mainly go to each other. The rewarding of geographic concentration is an essential feature of electoral systems which use single-member districts; it was, of course, a fundamental reason for originally using single-member districts i.e., to provide representation for the electors of a particular area. Many people would still argue in favour of this, despite the growth of strong parties to reduce the strength of link between the elected representative and the district, and also despite communication systems being much faster and more extensive than in the 19th Century. Thus, in 1998, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party obtained no seats despite obtaining 8.4 per cent of the first preference votes. So, here it may be easily pointed out that the non-partisan type of bias arises as a consequence of the type of electoral system used and would apply equally to any party which has important consequences. The another systemic, non-partisan "winner's hunts" as quantified by the cube law has simply a reflection of and is not evidence of bias in drawing boundaries. The "winner's bonus" factor in Australia, known as the cube law which says that in a two-party, single-member electoral system with equal numbers of votes in each district, tile numbers of seats won by the two parties will be roughly in the ratio of the cube of their vote proportions. Single-member systems have another form of non-partisan bias, one which is often referred to as leading to a "winner's bonus". The winning party will generally obtain a larger percentage of seats than it does of votes; this is non-partisan because it usually applies to whichever party wins an election. It is actually a feature of single-member systems which a number of people find very desirable, because it tends to lead to