How Did Outcome Of The Battle Of Gettysburg Affect Morale On Both Sides? It Convinced The North That Victory Was Possible And The South That Defeat Was Inevitable. It Convinced The South That Victory Was Possible And The North That Defeat Was Inevitable. It Convinced The South That General Lee Was A Great Leader And The North That General Meade Was Not. It Convinced The North That General Lee Was A Great Leader And The South That General Meade Was Not.
source : weegy.com
How did outcome of the Battle of Gettysburg affect morale on both sides?
It convinced the North that victory was possible and the South that defeat was inevitable.
It convinced the South that victory was possible and the North that defeat was inevitable.
It convinced the South that General Lee was a great leader and the North that General Meade was not.
It convinced the North that General Lee was a great leader and the South that General Meade was not.
Weegy: 81% of 36 = 29.16 User: If a polynomial has three terms, x2 + 12x + 36, which factoring method can be considered? Weegy: x^2 + 12x + 36 = (x + 6)^2 User: If a polynomial has three terms, x2 + 12x + 36, which factoring method can be considered perfect-square trinomial
difference of squares
sum of cubes
difference of cubes (More)
How did outcome of the battle of gettysburg affect morale – The outcome of the Battle of Gettysburg affected morale on both sides by convincing the North that was possible and the South that defeat was inevitable. Explanation. The Battle of Gettysburg- This was a battle of three days which was fought back in the year 1863 by the union and the confederation forces during the american civil war.The outcome of the Battle of Gettysburg affect morale on both sides by: It convinced the North that victory was possible and the South that defeat was inevitable. Log in for more information.Two Parts of a Greater Whole The American Civil War did not have an inevitable outcome during it 's first few stages of development. Nevertheless, the Battle of Gettysburg and Vicksburg became a turning point for the Civil War. Both of these battles ended in favor for the Federal Government also known as the Union, North, or Yankees.
How did outcome of the Battle of Gettysburg affect morale – Question: How did outcome of the Battle of Gettysburg affect morale on both sides? A. It convinced the North that victory was possible and the South that defeat was inevitable. B. It convinced the South that victory was possible and the North that defeat was inevitable. C. It convinced the South that General Lee was a great leader and the North that General Meade was not. D.Other effects of the battle included the Confederacy's loss of morale and rise in Union confidence, which both had a great deal of effect towards the outcomes of the war, but not the most impactful. Did you like this example?A loss at Gettysburg could have devastated Union morale and pressured the Lincoln administration to negotiate a peace that would have resulted in two nations. Linked with news of the victory at…
Compare And Contrast The Battle Of Gettysburg And – On the third day of the Battle of Gettysburg, Confederate General Robert E. Lee's last attempt at breaking the Union line ends in disastrous failure, bringing the most decisive battle of thePerhaps the best-known effect of the Battle of Gettysburg did not result directly from the battle. On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln attended the dedication of a military cemetery at Gettysburg. In the two minute long speech that came to be known as the Gettysburg address, Lincoln made a statement about the significance of the warBoth sides arrayed their forces around the small town, and the bloodiest battle of the war began. On the first day of the battle, Confederate forces were situated north of the town of Gettysburg, and the Union forces approached from the south.
Fabian strategy – The Fabian strategy is a military
strategy where pitched battles and frontal assaults are avoided in favor of
wearing down an opponent through a war of attrition and indirection.
avoiding decisive battles, the side employing this strategy harasses its
enemy through skirmishes to cause attrition, disrupt supply and affect
morale. Employment of this strategy implies that the side adopting this
strategy believes time is on its side, but it may also be adopted when no
feasible alternative strategy can be devised.
History This strategy derives its name from
Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, the dictator of the Roman Republic given the
task of defeating the great Carthaginian general Hannibal in southern Italy
during the Second Punic War. At the start of the war, Hannibal boldly
crossed the Alps in wintertime and invaded Italy. Due to Hannibal's skill
as a general, he repeatedly inflicted devastating losses on the Romans despite
the numerical inferiority of his army—quickly achieving two crushing
victories over the Romans at the Battle of Trebbia and the Battle of Lake
Trasimene. After these disasters the Romans appointed Fabius Maximus as
dictator. Well aware of the military superiority of the Carthaginians and the
ingenuity of Hannibal, Fabius initiated a war of attrition which was designed to
exploit Hannibal's strategic vulnerabilities.
Hannibal suffered from two particular weaknesses. First, he was commander of
an invading foreign army on Italian soil, effectively cut off from the home
country by the difficulty of seaborne resupply. His only hope of destroying
Rome was by enlisting the support of her allies. As long as the Italians remained
loyal to Rome, then there was no hope that Hannibal would win; but should the
Romans keep on losing battles, their allies' faith in Rome would weaken.
Therefore, Fabius calculated that the way to defeat Hannibal was to avoid
engaging with him in pitched battles, so as to deprive him of victories. He
determined that Hannibal's extended supply lines, and the cost of
maintaining the Carthaginian army in the field, meant that Rome had time on its
side. Rather than fight, Fabius shadowed Hannibal's army and avoided battle,
instead sending out small detachments against Hannibal's foraging parties, and
maneuvering the Roman army in hilly terrain, so as to nullify Hannibal's
decisive superiority in cavalry. Residents of small northern villages
were encouraged to post lookouts, so that they could gather their livestock
and possessions and take refuge in fortified towns. He used interior lines
to ensure that at no time could Hannibal march on Rome without abandoning his
Mediterranean ports, while at the same time inflicting constant, small,
debilitating defeats on the North Africans. This, Fabius had concluded,
would wear down the invaders' endurance and discourage Rome's allies from going
over to the enemy, without having to challenge the Carthaginians to a
decisive battle. Hannibal's second weakness was that much
of his army was made up of mercenaries from Gaul and Spain, who had no great
loyalty to Hannibal, although they disliked Rome. Being mercenaries, they
were unequipped for siege-type battles; having neither the equipment nor the
patience for such a campaign. The mercenaries desired quick, overwhelming
battles and raids of villages for plunder, much like land-based pirates.
As such, Hannibal's army was virtually no threat to Rome, a walled city which
would have required a long siege to reduce, which is why Hannibal never
attempted it. Hannibal's only option was to beat Roman armies in the field
quickly before plunder ran out and the Gauls and Spaniards deserted for plunder
elsewhere. Fabius's strategy of delaying battle and attacking supply chains thus
hit right at the heart of Hannibal's weakness; time, not energy, would
cripple Hannibal's advances. The Fabian strategy, though effective in some ways,
was perceived as cowardly and unbecoming of the Fabian name, established by his
ancestors' victories in pitched battles. = Political opposition=
Fabius's strategy, though a military success, was a political failure. His
indirect policies, while tolerable among wiser minds in the Roman Senate, were
deemed unpopular, because the Romans had been long accustomed to facing and
besting their enemies directly in the field of battle. The Fabian strategy was
in part ruined because of a lack of unity in the command of the Roman army.
The magister equitum, Marcus Minucius Rufus, a political enemy of Fabius, is
famously quoted exclaiming, Did we come here to see our allies
butchered, and their property burned, as a spectacle to be enjoyed? And if we are
not moved with shame on account of any others, are we not on account of these
citizens… a Carthaginian foreigner, who was advanced even this far from the
remotest limits of the world, through our dilatoriness and inactivity?
As the memory of the shock of Hannibal's victories grew dimmer, the Roman
populace gradually started to question the wisdom of the Fabian strategy, the
very thing which had allowed them the time to recover. It was especially
frustrating to the mass of the people, who were eager to see a quick conclusion
to the war. Moreover, it was widely believed that if Hannibal continued
plundering Italy unopposed, the terrified allies, believing that Rome
was incapable of protecting them, might defect and pledge their allegiance to
the Carthaginians. Since Fabius won no large-scale victories, the Roman Senate
removed him from command. Their chosen replacement, Gaius Terentius Varro, led
the Roman army into the debacle at the Battle of Cannae. The Romans, after
experiencing this catastrophic defeat and losing countless other battles, had
at this point learned their lesson. They utilized the strategies Fabius had
taught them, and which, they finally realized, were the only feasible means
of driving Hannibal from Italy. This strategy of attrition earned Fabius
the cognomen "Cunctator". Later usage
The strategy was used by the medieval French general Bertrand du Guesclin
during the Hundred Years' War against the English following a series of
disastrous defeats in pitched battles against Edward, the Black Prince.
Eventually du Guesclin was able to recover most of the territory that had
been lost. The most noted use of Fabian strategy in
American history was by George Washington, sometimes called the
"American Fabius" for his use of the strategy during the first year of the
American Revolutionary War. While Washington had initially pushed for
traditional direct engagements and victories, he was convinced of the
merits of using his army to harass the British rather than engage them both by
the urging of his generals in his councils of war, and by the
pitched-battle disasters of 1776, especially the Battle of Long Island. In
addition, with a history as a Colonial officer and having witnessed Indian
warfare, Washington predicted this style would aid in defeating the traditional
battle styles of the British Army. However, as with the original Fabius,
Fabian strategy is often more popular in retrospect than at the time. To the
troops, it can seem like a cowardly and demoralizing policy of continual
retreat. Fabian strategy is sometimes combined with scorched earth tactics
that demand sacrifice from civilian populations. Fabian leaders may be
perceived as giving up territory without a fight, and since Fabian strategies
promise extended war rather than quick victories, they can wear down the will
of one's own side as well as the enemy. During the American Revolution, John
Adams' dissatisfaction with Washington's conduct of the war led him to declare,
"I am sick of Fabian systems in all quarters!"
Later in history, Fabian strategy would be employed all over the world. Used
against Napoleon's Grande Armée the Fabian strategy proved to be decisive in
the defense of Russia. Sam Houston effectively employed a Fabian defense in
the aftermath of the Battle of the Alamo, using delaying tactics and
small-unit harrying against Santa Anna's much larger force, to give time for the
Army of Texas to grow into a viable fighting force. When he finally met
Santa Anna, on the fields of San Jacinto, Houston chose the time for
attack equally well, launching his forces while the Mexican Army was
lounging in siesta. The resulting victory ensured the establishment of the
Republic of Texas. With the victory at San Jacinto, Houston's detractors were
able to see the validity of his delaying tactics. During the First Indochina War,
the Vietnamese independentists used the Fabian strategy by utilizing delaying
and hit-and-run tactics and scorched-earth strategy against the
better-equipped French forces, which indeed prolonged the war but later made
both the French high command and home front weary against it, much worsened by
the eventual Vietnamese victory at Dien Bien Phu.
= Fabian Socialism= Fabian Socialism, the ideology of the
Fabian Society which originated in 1884 and launched the Labour Party in the
United Kingdom in 1904, utilizes the same strategy of a "war of attrition" in
their aim to bring about a socialist state. The advocation of gradualism
distinguished this brand of socialism from those who condone revolutionary
action. See also
The Art of War Battle of annihilation
Fabian Society Guerrilla Warfare
Scorched earth References .
MOOC | The Peace Democrats | The Civil War and Reconstruction, 1861-1865 | 2.7.1 – >> After last week — we were talking about the sort of internal history of the Confederacy and the Union — let's go back to the sort of narrative or the chronology of the Civil War.
We sort of left off with the Emancipation Proclamation, January 1st, 1863, which of course had enormous impact on many aspects of American life. But in military terms, the Proclamation is seen as part of the shift from what they call conventional war to what military guys now call "hard war." The war is no longer a matter of sort of very discrete battles, sometimes with months between them, fought for fairly limited objectives, actually. Now the war is a war to fundamentally change Southern society with the destruction of slavery. And it goes along with a move toward this, you know, more modern or more difficult warfare, where armies are living off the land, are confiscating things from farmers, etc., where the line between military and civilian targets becomes much more difficult to draw. After all, slavery is now a target of the war. It's a military institution in a way, but it's also a social and many other institutions, many other aspects of institutional life. So it's now moving toward a much more total conflict, the war, and emancipation is a symbol of that, and it's also happening on the military as well, in 1863, '64. But of course it also had political implications. In the spring of 1863, what Republicans called "copperheadism,” and what others might just call internal dissent or antiwar sentiment the North, seemed to be at hightide. The North was still not winning the war. At best, it was a sort of a stalemate. The draft was coming in. There was a lot of war weariness, a sense of defeatism. And the inability to win battles, especially in the Eastern theater. In April 1863, the great Army of the Potomac, the Northern army, which already been defeated at Bull Run and Second Bull Run, and Fredericksburg, and McClellan's campaign on the Peninsula in 1862, now with a new general, "Fighting Joe" Hooker, moved into Virginia and confronted Lee's army right here in Chancellorsville. Very close. You see how much of the war is conducted in a fairly small area of northern Virginia here, between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, which is just slightly further to the south. Chancellorsville is the fourth or fifth major battle in that small area, and once again, it was a Confederate victory. Somehow Robert E. Lee and his army were able to defeat a much larger force under Hooker. But Lee was a much better battlefield technician. He managed, somehow, he managed to divide his smaller army, sent Stonewall Jackson around to the side, the flank of the Union army, which was unprotected, thanks to an error by General O. O. Howard, who later will become head of the Freedmen's Bureau, we'll see. And the Union army sort of collapsed when attacked from the side, retreated. And even though Stonewall Jackson, Lee's great lieutenant, was killed in the battle, having been mistakenly shot by one of his own men, Lee appeared invincible. I mean the Northern press, etc., said nobody can defeat Lee, there's no way we're going to win this war. And it was a big blow to Northern morale. And in the spring of 1863 in Ohio, the military arrests Congressman Clement Vallandigham. Vallandigham, who is giving antiwar speeches. He's the leader of what are called the "peace Democrats," that is, not only critical of the war effort but just saying we must have peace. They're not total dis-unionists, but they say that really the war should be abandoned. There should be a negotiation with the Confederacy. It's not quite clear what'll come of that. But there should be armistice, an end to the war, it's not accomplishing anything. And Vallandigham is arrested by the military in May 1863 for giving antiwar speeches in Ohio, charged with giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and is sentenced to imprisonment. But Lincoln commutes his sentence to sort of exile or expulsion to the Confederacy, sends him over the line into the South, partly so he's not sitting in jail as a martyr for the rest of the war. The Confederacy doesn't want him and eventually he's put on a blockade runner and ends up in Canada. But in June 1863, in Ohio, a critical state then and now, politically, the Democratic Convention nominates Vallandigham in absentia as their candidate for governor of Ohio in 1863. So the point of this is that there's going to be basically a referendum in the state of Ohio on whether to continue the war or not. If Vallandigham is elected governor of Ohio, given that history I just gave you, it will be a statement that the Northern public does not want the war to continue. Vallandigham's policy, as I say, is an armistice (that is a cessation of fighting), the withdrawal of the Union army from the seceded states, free trade between North and South, and then negotiations to have a new national presidential election in 1864. So you see, even Vallandigham says the Union should be preserved, in a completely different way than Lincoln is pursuing it, but he wants a national election to bring North and South back in 1864. That's why the Confederacy doesn't want him. He does not recognize Confederate independence, even though he's a vigorous opponent of everything the Lincoln administration is doing and certainly — also rescind emancipation, that's the obstacle to peace, rescind the Proclamation, go back to the Constitution and the laws of 1860. So this is the peace plan, which will be voted on by the voters of Ohio in the fall of . Now a lot of this, of course, depends on what happens on the battlefield. If there's just more and more defeats, then antiwar sentiment will grow. .
Symbols of the Civil War Part 1 – Hello everyone.
Welcome to Sailor's Creek Battlefield Historical State Park.
This is the site of the last major fight of the war in Virginia.
It takes place on April 6, 1865, just three days before the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse.
My name is Ranger Lee Wilcox.
Today is part of our "Rocking Chair Reflections"
series of programs. We''re going to focus on Civil War symbology.
In particular, unit insignia of the federal army what we call Corps badges.
The period of time we're focusing on in the Civil War is March 1863.
The war is not quite 2 years old. The federal army has suffered major defeats
up to this point. Abraham Lincoln in Washington DC is frustrated. He's gone through a series of commanders. And the next individual's turn at bat is going
to be a general named Joseph Hooker. He is promoted to commander of the federal
forces in March of 1863. This is General Joseph Hooker here. He decides that he is going to do a restructuring of federal forces in the field. It is not a major overhaul. He's not reinventing the wheel.
But he is going to tweak it to a form that he believes will work, be more manageable. Fast forward a little bit, even though these ideas take root and are very successful, Joseph Hooker is another in a long line of commanders that do not last long leading the army. In fact the very first battle, the Battle of Chancellorsville, he is so soundly defeated by Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia that he's sacked. But he does leave a legacy behind. And that's the restructuring of the army in 1863 with the implementation of what we call corps badges. To give you an idea of how things appeared structurally wise, or organizational wise
during the war in 1863 he had several armies in the field. Unlike today, where you just have the United States Army as a whole, there were several armies. And they had their own individual names. For example, the Army of the Potomac, the Army of the James, the Army of the Shenandoah. On the confederate side, you had Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. Both sides had an Army of the Tennessee. The general idea is that armies in the field
had their own names. This structure that I'm talking about, this is a basic design as an example of what we're talking about. At the top, you had the army in the field. So for the sake of this example, let's just
say that this is the Army of the Potomac. They were subdivided into smaller units referred
to as corps. Spelled C-O-R-P-S.
It is often mispronounced as corps. But the p and the s are actually silent.
So like today's United States Marine Corps, the word corps, the p and the s are silent. And that's what we're talking about is our corps units within an army. Most armies had approximately 4 on average as the total number of corps in their group. Anything more than 4 can be very difficult to manage. Sometimes there were units out there that had less than 3 corps. But what Joseph Hooker does is he takes the corps structure and he subdivides it into
the divisional level. This bottom row here. And each corps is given three divisions. And he color codes them red, white and blue.
Very patriotic. In each corps, there is a first division.
And their color is red. The second division is colored white.
And the third division is colored blue. Where that is leading us to is the corps insignia. His next challenge is for each unit is to come up with their own corps badge. The purpose of this is two-fold. Backing things up a little bit, prior to this
introduction, if you can imagine a commander out in the field, on the federal side, trying to manage his troops. Once the firing starts, you have the muskets
going off, the cannons firing, there's soon smoke all over the battlefield and all you see is a big field of blue uniforms. Much like what I'm wearing right now.
The blue coat, the blue hat. As a commander, all you see is this big sea of blue. It is very difficult to keep track of your
unit as things are moving and where to direct those guys in a much timely needed area. It contributed a lot to some of the disasters that were affecting the federal army at this point. One enterprising commander actually came up with an armband for his soldiers so he could keep track of them. It was of a distinguishing bright color.
And it proved successful. So what Joseph Hooker does is he takes that concept and he applies it to the corps unit structure and the individual divisions, the red, white and blue. He challenges the units to come up with their own symbol. And it ends up being a two-fold purpose. One, as I just stated, as a commander it helped to keep track of their units out in the field
and easily identify the corps insignia. And you can also quickly determine which division
you're looking at within your corps based on the color, the red, the white, or the blue. By the end of the war, there are 25 corps units that have been formed. What we're going to do as part of this program is we're going to dive into each individual corps, all 25, and discuss the symbols they came up with. Like all things, most of them have a good story.
Some of them don't. Some of them are very intricate in their design.
Others are pretty bland. Let's get started. The 1st Corps, the symbol that they come up with that is going to be representative of them, is something they can rally behind. This is the second part of the purpose of
having the corps insignia, is for it to be like a logo, a mascot, like a high school mascot, or like a modern sports team, and their symbols. It's something that that unit identifies with and can rally behind. A sense of morale is increased with these guys going to be able to say, "that's my corps,
that's my division, these are our accomplishments". So going back here, the 1st Corps, they decided to meet the challenge and
they came up with a circle. Not all that exciting.
Just a plain simple circle. They'll wear it as a logo on their uniforms,
much like on this jacket here. This is actually a corps symbol.
I'll discuss this one as we get to it. They'll wear it on their coat, most of the
time sewn over their hearts. Also, on their hats. But this is the first corps. They come up with a circle. Like I was saying, at the divisional level, the circle would have been for the first division – red, for the second division – white, and for the third division – blue. The 2nd Corps, they decide they're going to do something a little bit different. And they do put some thought into it, pretty clever. They come up with the trefoil. It is also the symbol of the clubs in a deck of cards. I'm not sure if that was the influence or not. I'm sure the soldiers were playing cards quite a bit in camp. But this is the 2nd Corps' symbol, the trefoil. So things went from circle to an elaborate design. We're getting off to a good start. So let's see what the third corps comes up with. And they decide they're going to use the diamond. Ok, that's cool but not all that exciting. It still follows that theme from a deck of cards, maybe. But this is their symbol, the 4-sided diamond. The 4th Corps and I'm not sure if this
was a result of the 3rd Corps stealing their thunder, or if it was just something they settled on, what they decide to come up with is the triangle. Now it seems like in retrospect this would be ideal for the 3rd Corps and the diamond should be the 4th Corps. The 3rd Corps got to decide first so they
chose that diamond symbol. So the 4th Corps says we're going to do the triangle. Not all that exciting but this is their symbol
for the 4th Corps. Now the 5th Corps, is the first sign of what we see as a religious influence on the symbols, particularly the Christian cross. In this case, the 5th Corps comes up with
what we call the maltese cross. It is made famous at the Battle of Gettysburg. If anyone is familiar with the story of
Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, he is in the fifth corps.
He is the hero of the Battle of Little Roundtop. And when you go to Gettysburg today, you'll
see this symbol in that particular part of the battlefield where they made their epic stand, the 5th Corps. In particular, in Joshua Chamberlain's instance,
it was the first division. So his unit was the red color maltese cross
on their uniforms. Here again, the second division would have
been a white cross. The third division would have been blue. This brings us to the end of what we call part 1 of this Civil War Symbology program. I hope you've enjoyed it so far. We're going to continue on with the
remainder of the corps insignia, we have 20 more to go, and that will be in part 2 of our program. I hope you can tune in. Thank you for watching this episode.
I hope you liked it. And I hope you're enjoying these video presentations
that we're doing on the State Park level. If you get a chance give us your feedback.
Let us know what you think. Until then we'll see you at Part 2 of Civil War Symbology
Corps Badges. Thank you. .