The Effects Of Leadership On Morale, Strategy, And The Tide Of Battle

Mission command belongs to the Army’s list of seven war fighting functions. While the other six of the Army’s war fighting functions specifically align to the application of combat power, mission command applies to leadership and its application. Mission command redefines the old construct of C2, command and control, by morphing the ideology into two distinct thoughts, the art of command and the science of control. Although mission command is a relatively new concept, it’s principles and application transcend time. This paper examines General Robert E. Lee’s application of the mission command principles at the Battle of Gettysburg.

The battle of Chattanooga was a really bloody battle. At first there were a total of 100,369 troops and 12,485 that died it was not the bloodiest battle but it was bloody. Both sides didn’t have a difference of troops dying. Even though, Grant was successful he lost about 6,000 troops out of 56,000. It was mostly troops not generals. On the other hand Brgg had lost about 6,700 troops out of 30,000 troops. And another reason grant one was because he outnumbered Bragg by a lot. Here lets do the

During the American Civil War, leadership within the Union’s army was constantly an issue. Within the Union, various generals were found at times to be at odds with the political leaders in Washington. This was especially evident in the relationship between General George McClellan and President Lincoln. This tension was the result of McClellan’s approach to waging war. By examining the differing approaches to waging war of U.S. Grant and George B. McClellan one can gain a better appreciation for the decision making that was necessary by leaders like Lincoln, in selecting military

Grant viewed his role as formulating general policies for the Union armies and leaving tactical decisions to theater commanders. He favored bold attacks and maneuvers, however, while Meade felt more comfortable waging set-piece battles. Their approaches to fighting Lee were incompatible, and friction was inevitable.” (Civil War Series)

It was General Bragg’s lack of confidence, previous performances, and relationships with his subordinate commanders that ultimately caused the battle plan to not be executed correctly. Bragg was unable to successfully implement the first principle of mission command: build cohesive teams through mutual trust. He also had a history of not utilizing the sixth principle of mission command: take prudent risk. Bragg’s lack of competence regarding these two mission command principles ultimately set conditions for a poor mission command climate within General Bragg’s unit. Bragg’s sub-commanders, Generals Hindman, Buckner, Polk, Longstreet, and Hill were all skeptical of Bragg’s leadership and battle plans from his previous campaign at Chattanooga, where he retreated from the city. Bragg was well known for retreating at the first Battle of Chattanooga, and also for predictably employing frontal assault offensive tactics. His history of predictable plans, retreats, and inability to take prudent risk, caused his subordinate leaders to lose trust in his ability to plan and lead his army. One of Bragg’s sub-commanders, General Hill, stated

Throughout his time as commander in chief of the union army, Ulysses S. Grant understood and appreciated the commitment his soldiers made, as suggested by letters to his family, which forced him to focus greatly on war technique, ultimately allowing him to be a great leader of the Union army. In a letter written to his Father, in which he discusses the war, Grant states, “I do not wish to act hastily or unadvisedly in the matter.” Grant’s cautiousness and attention to details, when his troops and his army are concerned, shows that all decisions he makes concerning his troops have been carefully thought out, so he doesn’t put his troops in danger. Grant wishes to give “all the

Civil War historians view the Battle of Chancellorsville as General Robert E. Lee’s “greatest and most remarkable” victory (Sears 1). Lee, facing an army twice his size, defies all military doctrine and divides his army multiple times in order to out-maneuver and surprise the Union forces. The daring maneuver succeeds and ultimately forces the Union’s Army of the Potomac to retreat. The victory was another major blow to Union troops, but it came at a huge cost to the Confederacy: the loss of General Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson. By evaluating the battle through the lens of the mission command activities, one can see how Lee’s daring maneuver was actually very calculated and his only option for victory. Throughout the rest of this paper, I will describe the timeline of the battle and how General Lee used the mission command activities of understand, visualize, assess, and lead to ultimately achieve victory at Chancellorsville.

Union officer William Tecumseh Sherman observed to a Southern friend that, "In all history, no nation of mere agriculturists ever made successful war against a nation of mechanics. . . .You are bound to fail." While Sherman's statement proved to be correct, its flaw is in its assumption of a decided victory for the North and failure to account for the long years of difficult fighting it took the Union to secure victory. Unquestionably, the war was won and lost on the battlefield, but there were many factors that swayed the war effort in favor of the North and impeded the South's ability to stage a successful campaign.

Williams shows an interesting side of Lincoln’s patience that wears thin when there are no early victories and from the lack of aggressiveness on the Union side. Williams shows a gradual transformation on Lincoln’s selection process. Initially each general was selected on characteristics such as battle experience and political backing. As the enemy holds out and there is inaction, Lincoln starts to doubt the ability of his generals and starts to seek generals who can win without excuses.

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.

The Battle of Gettysburg was fought for three days from July 1 to 3. The Army of the Potomac, led by General George Meade, repelled the attack of the Confederate’s Army, led by General Robert E. Lee. The purpose of this paper is to examine General Lee’s effectiveness by analyzing his utilization of the mission command, and its principles.

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.

Leadership Essay There were many qualities for leaders in the American civil war for both the union and the confederacy, and they had both successes and failures during the course of the American civil war which had two amazing leaders being Ulysses S. Grant from the union and George McClellan from the confederacy who both showed successes and failures during the American civil war. Ulysses S. Grant had successes as a leader in the union during the course of the American civil war. One of the best and most important successes Ulysses S. Grant had in the American civil was having the union win the American civil war while he was one of the leaders in the union. “Vicksburg marked both Grant's greatest achievement thus far and a moral boost for

The American Civil War was the South’s to lose, even though they lacked the firepower needed and had far less men, the win was within their grasp after the first shot at Fort Sumter. The reason for this was simple, they had a cause and they were willing to fight for it until the very end. They also had a few men who stood out as some of the most intelligent and militarily inclined leaders ever to have control of an army. Of those masterminds included Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, James Longstreet, and George Pickett. Unlike the other three Generals listed here, George Pickett is the only one to be remembered for failure rather than for great achievement. ”Pickett 's Charge” as it’s known history was the final push for the South at

The reason for writing this book from McPherson’s point of view was because out of all the material out there about President Lincoln the vast majority of it is about other topics besides his role as Commander in Chief. McPherson believes that this is surely unthinkable due to the sheer amount of time and energy Lincoln had to put into being the commander of our army throughout the four long years the Civil War reigned. This book, in the eyes of James McPherson, is a long overdue explanation of Lincoln in his main role as Commander in Chief. He tells of numerous occasions when Lincoln must make important decisions that could make or break the union army. These