"--The vote has been stolen from you by a cartel of federal "national security"bureaucrats, who include higher-ups in the Central Intelligence Agency, politicalparty leaders, Congressmen, co-opted journalists -- and the owners and managers-- of the major Establishment news media, who have decided in concert thathow America's votes are counted, by whom they are counted and how the resultsare verified and delivered to the public is, as one of them put it, 'Nota proper area of inquiry.'"--By means of an unofficial private corporation named News Election Service(NES), the Establishment press has actual physical control of the countingand dissemination of the vote, and it refuses to let the public know howit is done."Is the American electorate subjected to cyclic propaganda, pre-selectedcandidates and winners, and psychological warfare to alienate Americans fromthe institutions established to serve them by the Constitution?
Despite all this, many historians still believe that artillery wasn't important during the war. Casualties caused by artillery fire were negligible - or so they say. A frequently cited example is the Wilderness, where artillery was said to account for only about 6% of all casualties. Paddy Griffith points out that many casualties attributed to small arms fire may in fact have been caused by artillery, specifically by the small round balls in Shrapnel rounds. Griffith suggests that the percentage of casualties caused by artillery in this battle were probably in proportion to the percentage of artillerymen in the armies. Because of the terrain, this battle, and this result, represent an extreme case. Lee knew that he was deficient in artillery, and he fought in the Wilderness in order to negate the Union advantage. The relative ineffectiveness of artillery in this battle is clearly an aberration. Chancellorsville was also fought in the Wilderness. In this battle, perhaps only the Confederate guns at Hazel Grove allowed Lee to capture Fairview Heights and defeat the Union army. Look at Spotsylvania a year later, also fought in the Wilderness. The massive Union attack on the Mule Shoe broke through because Lee had withdrawn his artillery the night before. Several days later, a Union attack on the base of the salient failed quickly and decisively due to Confederate artillery fire. And we must remember that most ground was NOT as unfavorable as the Wilderness. Take a look at the more open ground at Malvern Hill, Antietam, Fredericksburg, and Gettysburg and the importance of artillery is obvious. Clearly artillery important or army commanders wouldn't have eagerly added to their stocks of guns up until the last year of the war. In fact, Paddy Griffith suggests that in some battles, artillery accounted for 20 to 50% of casualties. Those who over-estimate the advantages of the rifled musket say that it threatened to make the artilleryman obsolete, but perhaps the opposite was more true. Although many historians do not stress this point, or even acknowledge it, advances in the artillery arm had made Napoleonic combined arms tactics difficult to impossible.
term paper 9138 Civil War Inevitable?
Economic interests had a great deal to do with the initiation of the War for Southern Independence. The South had been pushed to beyond reasonable tolerance. In 1860 the revenues that supported the Federal government were derived from export-import taxes (there were no sales taxes or income taxes) and essentially three-fourths of these taxes were paid by the South. The Federal government then used these monies to fund projects in the North or West - but not principally in the South that had paid the monies into the accounts! The South had to pay twice; first to export their cotton and then to import the goods purchased abroad from the profits made from the cotton sales. Further, the North was using these taxes to protect their own non-competitive industries. The South was being abused and victimized by the North. The Republican Platform of 1860 called for a high protective tariff that was anathema to the South.
Was the civil war inevitable thesis proposal - I Help to …
If you understand how Napoleon fought, you will see that Civil War tactics were different in a number of important ways. These differences perhaps explain much of why Civil War combat tended to be indecisive.
Was The Us Civil War Inevitable History Essay
In the gunpowder age, battle was often indecisive; Napoleonic combat, the ultimate development of linear tactics, is the exception. To understand Napoleonic tactics, you first have to understand how and why they developed. To do that, you have to go back one hundred years before even Napoleon's time to the invention of the socket bayonet. Before then, an infantry battalion was an unwieldy and vulnerable combination of musketeers and pikemen, with the pikemen protecting the musketeers from enemy pikemen and cavalry. When the socket bayonet replaced the plug bayonet, musketeers shed themselves of pikemen because they could now protect themselves and still fire their muskets. Musketeers stretched themselves thinner, first into six ranks, then four, then three, and finally just two. It was still an awkward system in some ways, with difficulty deploying an army from the march into line of battle. In Marlborough's day, in the early 1700s, it took most of the day to prepare for battle, and it was impossible to surprise an enemy on the march. When battle began, the whole of the infantry would typically attack together simultaneously in two lines. The logical place for cavalry was on the flanks. In battle, the cavalry would defeat the opposing enemy horsemen then attack the rear of the enemy infantry just like in the 1600s - but also much like during the American Civil War, at least in theory. By Napoleon's time, however, this would change - thanks to advances in infantry tactics.