Why Was Sheridan's Plan Successful

It was well believed until Jackson’s forces began unloading rounds on the Union army stopping McDowell’s forces from advancing, holding the line like “a stone wall.” As the new Union recruits witnessed battle for the first time and felt the lack of preparation, they were quick to retreat back to Washington DC. The Southern victory and the tens of thousands of lives lost proved to the Union that this war was not going to be easily won.

Lee and Grant would both serve under General Winfield Scott, a man whom they both admired, during his campaign to Mexico City. General Scott saw greatness in Lee and stated his “…success in Mexico was largely due to the skill, valor, and undaunted energy of Robert E. Lee.”15 Scott was also heard commenting a few years later that; “Lee is the greatest military genius in America.”16 Grant, only a first lieutenant, did not get an opportunity to show much leadership. Grant did however serve with valor. At the Battle of Monterey, Grant would gain some respect among his peers by successfully carrying much needed ammunition to his regiment while under fire.17 During the Civil War, Lee and Grant would implement skills learned while under the command of General Winfield Scott.

This battle was amazing because the generals where Ulysses S. Grant and Braxton Bragg. These were two really good generals. Grant was so smart and confident that Lincoln made him head of all unions army’s. Grant won a lot of battles. Bragg became a full time

The battle of Gettysburg led by General George G. Meade was an excellent example of how the North utilized tactics and territory to their advantage. They utilized the hills and patience which allowed them to maintain

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

The Commander of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia was General Robert E. Lee. General Lee graduated second in his class from West Point in 1829 and served throughout the country, but is best known for his leadership during the Mexican-American War. General Lee believed in unity but when the state of Virginia decided to secede from the Union in April 1861, Lee decided to stay with Virginia. Confederate president Jefferson Davis asked Lee to serve as his senior military adviser and General Lee took command of the Army of Northern Virginia on June 1, 1862.

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

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.

In one of the parties, General Lyon was leading the troops. His army composed of various kinds of divisions. They were small Regular Army, infantry, artillery, and calvary unit. A really interesting fact about it was the troops of Lyon composed of a ninety-day volunteer regiments from three states ; Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa. Lyon’s army was divided in four brigades. During Lyon’s involvement in one of the small battles in Mexico, Lyon had learned many things that he then applied to the battle in Willson’s creek. It fitted better because the war itself was small in Willson’s Creek. It made the same tactics reliable. However, Lyon was not very good at organizing the group for himself. He went with 3 people during the battle. He eventually

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.

When that attack failed, Grant started moblizing his forces along the whole 40-mile front. Southwest of Petersburg, Grant ordered General Philip Sheridan agianst Lee’s right flank. Sheridan relocated on March 31, but the tough Confederates stopped his advance. Sheridan moved troops to cut the railroad that ran from the southwest to Petersburg, but the focus of the battle became Five Forks, a road intersection that provided the provided the key to Lee’s supply line. Lee told his commander there, General George Pickett, to “Hold Five Forks at all hazards.” On April 1, Sheridan’s men banged into Pickett’s army. Pickett had his army badly positioned, and he was taking a large lunch with his crew when the war happened. General Gouverneur K. Warren’s V Corps helped Sheridan, and the 27,000 North soldiers soon demolished Pickett’s

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.

“Commanders continuously develop, test, and update their understanding throughout the conduct of operations. They actively collaborate with other commanders, the staff, and unified action partners, to create a shared understanding.” Understanding the mission is a crucial step to start the military decision making process because not understanding the task at hand will create blurred vision of the commander’s intent for any given mission. As Governor of the Indiana Territory, Harrison understood that the treaties with the Native Confederacy were extremely fragile. As Tecumseh and his brother’s efforts to demean the treaties’ value continued, Governor Harrison realized that a conflict was inevitable inside his territory. “Harrison suggested, as a means to prevent war, that the calamity might be avoided by marching a considerable force up the Wabash and dispersing the “banditti” the Prophet had collected.” With the idea of preemptive attack firmly planted in his head, he sowed the seeds for the eventual battle that later ensued. Harrison also had received intelligence that the great Native leader Tecumseh was recruiting more warriors to his cause, which furthered the fear that the Natives would grow stronger and eventually raid the settlers to take back some of the lands ceded from them. This intelligence furthered the idea to Harrison that he needed to field an army and quell the Native rebellion before it got too out of hand.

As commanders understand the operational environment and the problem, they can begin visualizing the desired end state and solutions to solving the problem.6 After noticing that Confederate artillery fire had slackened, COL Chamberlain’s experience told him that Confederate troops were coming and quickly began to envision an operational approach that would achieve his desired end state to hold his position on the far left of Little Round Top. Through his critical and creative thinking, COL Chamberlain showed a skill common within good tactical leaders. He mentally visualized possible countermoves against imagined threats to his unit. While analyzing the terrain he could see that the 83rd Pennsylvania was forming on his right but there was nothing at all on his left. COL Chamberlain could see a dark bulk of a larger hill to the left of his men and determined that if the Confederates got an artillery battery on its crest the Confederates could take Little Round Top and subsequently drive off the Union Army. Visualizing how this could affect his desired end state, COL Chamberlain decided that he would send a company to the 20th Maine’s

Our country has experienced great war leadership over the course of its short history. From George Washington to George S. Patton, great leadership in a time of war was a given. However, some of the most famous and most intelligent war leaders came about during the civil war. Confederates had men like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and J.E.B. Stuart. However, it was the Union leaders who stepped up when needed and were the victors of the war. Men like Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman are just two of the brave and brilliant men who saved America and made it what it is today.