Battle of Brandy Station in the Civil War

Battle of Brandy Station in the Civil War Battle of Brandy Station - Conflict Date: The Battle of Brandy Station was fought June 9, 1863, during the American Civil War (1861-1865). Armies Commanders Union Major General Alfred Pleasonton11,000 men Confederate Major General J.E.B. Stuart9,500 men Battle of Brandy Station - Background: In the wake of his stunning victory at the Battle of Chancellorsville, Confederate General Robert E. Lee began making preparations to invade the North. Prior to embarking on this operation, he moved to consolidate his army near Culpeper, VA. Early June 1863, the corps of Lieutenant General James Longstreet and Richard Ewell had arrived while the Confederate cavalry, led by Major General J.E.B. Stuart screened to the east. Moving his five brigades into camp around Brandy Station, the dashing Stuart requested a full field review of his troops by Lee. Scheduled for June 5, this saw Stuarts men move through a simulated battle near Inlet Station. As Lee proved unable to attend on June 5, this review was re-staged in his presence three days later, though without the mock battle. While impressive to behold, many criticized Stuart for needlessly tiring his men and horses. With the conclusion of these activities, Lee issued orders for Stuart to cross the Rappahannock River the next day and raid advanced Union positions. Understanding that Lee intended to begin his offensive shortly, Stuart moved his men back into camp to prepare for the next day. Battle of Brandy Station - Pleasontons Plan: Across the Rappahannock, the commander of the Army of the Potomac, Major General Joseph Hooker, sought to ascertain Lees intentions. Believing that the Confederate concentration at Culpeper signaled a threat to his supply lines, he summoned his cavalry chief, Major General Alfred Pleasonton, and ordered him to conduct a spoiling attack to disperse the Confederates at Brandy Station. To assist with the operation, Pleasonton was given two select brigades of infantry led by Brigadier Generals Adelbert Ames and David A. Russell. Though the Union cavalry had performed poorly to date, Pleasonton devised a daring plan which called for dividing his command into two wings. The Right Wing, consisting of Brigadier General John Bufords 1st Cavalry Division, a Reserve Brigade led by Major Charles J. Whiting, and Ames men, was to cross the Rappahannock at Beverlys Ford and advance south toward Brandy Station. The Left Wing, led by Brigadier General David McM. Gregg, was to cross to the east at Kellys Ford and attack from the east and south to catch the Confederates in a double envelopment. Battle of Brandy Station - Stuart Surprised: Around 4:30 AM on June 9, Bufords men, accompanied by Pleasonton, began crossing the river in a thick fog. Quickly overwhelming the Confederate pickets at Beverlys Ford, the pushed south. Alerted to the threat by this engagement, the stunned men of Brigadier General William E. Grumble Jones brigade rushed to the scene. Barely prepared for battle, they succeeded in briefly holding up Bufords advance. This allowed Stuarts Horse Artillery, which had nearly been taken unawares, to escape south and establish a position on two knolls flanking the Beverlys Ford Road (Map). While Jones men fell back to a position on the right of the road, Brigadier General Wade Hamptons brigade formed on the left. As the fighting escalated, the 6th Pennsylvania Cavalry unsuccessfully charged forward in an attempt to take the Confederate guns near St. James Church. As his men fought around the church, Buford began probing for a way around the Confederate left. These endeavors led him to encounter Brigadier General W.H.F. Rooney Lees brigade which had assumed a position behind a stone wall in front of Yew Ridge. In heavy fighting, Bufords men succeeded in driving Lee back and taking the position. Battle of Brandy Station - A Second Surprise: As Buford advanced against Lee, Union troopers engaging the St. James Church line were stunned to see Jones and Hamptons men retreating. This movement was in reaction to the arrival of Greggs column from Kellys Ford. Having crossed early that morning with his 3rd Cavalry Division, Colonel Alfred Duffià ©s small 2nd Cavalry Division, and Russells brigade, Gregg had been blocked from advancing directly on Brandy Station by Brigadier General Beverly H. Robertsons brigade which had taken a position on the Kellys Ford Road. Shifting south, he succeeded in finding an unguarded road which led into Stuarts rear. Advancing, Colonel Percy Wyndhams brigade led Greggs force into Brandy Station around 11:00 AM. Gregg was separated from Bufords fight by a large rise to the north known as Fleetwood Hill. The site of Stuarts headquarters before the battle, the hill was largely unoccupied except for a lone Confederate howitzer. Opening fire, it caused the Union troops to pause briefly. This permitted a messenger to reach Stuart and inform him of the new threat. As Wyndhams men began their attack up the hill, they were met by Jones troops riding in from St. James. Church (Map). Moving to join the battle, the Colonel Judson Kilpatricks brigade moved east and assaulted the south slope of Fleetwood. This attack was met by Hamptons arriving men. The battle soon deteriorated into a series of bloody charges and countercharges as both sides sought control of Fleetwood Hill. The fighting ended with Stuarts men in possession. Having been engaged by Confederate troops near Stevensburg, Duffià ©s men arrived too late to alter the outcome on the hill. To the north, Buford maintained pressure on Lee, forcing him to retreat to the hills northern slopes. Reinforced late in the day, Lee counterattacked Buford but found that the Union troops were already departing as Pleasonton had ordered a general withdrawal near sunset. Battle of Brandy Station - Aftermath: Union casualties in the fighting numbered 907 while the Confederates sustained 523. Among the wounded was Rooney Lee who was later captured on June 26. Though the fighting was largely inconclusive, it marked a turning point for the much-maligned Union cavalry. For the first time during the war, they matched their Confederate counterparts skill on the battlefield. In the wake of the battle, Pleasonton was criticized by some for not pressing home his attacks to destroy Stuarts command. He defended himself by stating that his orders had been for a reconnaissance in force toward Culpeper. Following the battle, an embarrassed Stuart attempted to claim victory on the grounds that the enemy had departed the field. This did little to hide the fact that he had been badly surprised and caught unawares by the Union attack. Chastised in the Southern press, his performance continued to suffer as he made key mistakes during the upcoming Gettysburg Campaign. The Battle of Brandy Station was the largest predominantly cavalry engagement of the war as well as the largest fought on American soil. Selected Sources National Park Service: Battle of Brandy Station CWPT: Battle of Brandy Station

logic - definition and observations

logic - definition and observations Definition: The study of the principles of reasoning. Logic (or dialectic) was one of the arts in the medieval trivium. Over the course of the 20th century, notes A.D. Irvine, the study of logic has benefited, not only from advances in traditional fields such as philosophy and mathematics, but also from advances in other fields as diverse as computer science and economics (Philosophy of Science, Logic and Mathematics in the Twentieth Century, 2003) See also: ArgumentDeduction Enthymeme and Syllogism FallacyInductionInferenceInformal LogicLogical ProofLogosRenaissance Rhetoric Etymology: Observations: But of all the arts the first and most general is logic, next grammar, and finally rhetoric, since there can be much use of reason without speech, but no use of speech without reason. We gave the second place to grammar because correct speech can be unadorned; but it can hardly be adorned before it is correct.(John Milton, The Art of Logic, 1672)Logic is the armory of reason, furnished with all defensive and offensive weapons. There are syllogisms, long swords; enthymemes, short daggers; dilemmas, two-edged swords that cut on both sides; sorites, chain-shot.(Thomas Fuller, The General Artist, 1661) Logic and RhetoricA good deal of everyday talk, even gossip, is intended to influence the beliefs and actions of others and thus constitutes a kind of argument. . . . [A]dvertisements often just provide product information rather than advance explicit arguments, yet clearly every such ad has an implied conclusionthat you should buy the advertised product.Nevertheless, it is important to un derstand the difference between rhetoric that is primarily expository and discourse that is basically argumentative. An argument makes the claim, explicit or implicit, that one of its statements follows from some of its other statements. It at least implies that acceptance of its conclusion is justified if one accepts its premises. A passage that is purely expository gives us no reason to accept any facts it may contain (other than the implied authority of the writer or speaker, as, for example, when a friend tells us that she had a good time at the beach).(Howard Kahane and Nancy Cavender, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life, 10th ed. Thomson Wadsworth, 2006) Formal Logic and Informal LogicSome logicians study only formal logic; that is, they work only with abstract models that have purely logical substance and content. . . .Relating the abstract systems of formal logic to real statements and arguments is not part of formal logic itself; it requires the consideration of many issues and factors beyond the basic logical forms of the statements and arguments. The study of the factors other than logical form relevant to the analysis and evaluation of statements and arguments of the kind that occur in everyday situations is known as informal logic. This study includes considerations of such things as: identification and clarification of vague or ambiguous statements; identification of unstated assumptions, presuppositions or biases and making them explicit; recognition of frequently used but highly questionable premises; and assessment of the strength of analogies between more or less similar cases.(Robert Baum, Logic, 4th edition, Harcourt B race, 1996) Pronunciation: LOJ-ik

The issue of how children should be treated in the tax system.and more Assignment

The issue of how children should be treated in the tax system.and more - Assignment Example The Canada Child Tax Benefit came to existence as a response to a commitment made by the parliament of Canada in the year 1989, to completely eliminate child poverty in Canada by the end of that millennium. For a person to qualify for this payment they must be living with and providing care to a child of bellow 18 year, must be Canadian residents, and must have a common-law partner or a spouse. This paper aims at discussing how children should be treated in the tax system. The first time Canada introduced financial assistance to families with children bellow the age of 18 was in the year 1945. This was made possible through the Family Allowance Act of 1944. In 1979 the monthly rate of family allowance was reduced from 25.68 dollars to 20.00 dollars. When income taxation was introduced in Canada in the year 1918, tax exemption was allowed for each child. The Canada Child Tax Benefit was introduced in the year 1992 and took effect in the year 1993. The Canada Child Tax Benefit aims pri marily at low income families with dependent children. The net effect of all these changes was that higher income families were treated the same way for tax purposes independent of the number of dependent children in the family (Hale, 2002). The Harper government reintroduced some modest tax breaks for higher income families with children, including tax credits for dependent children and children’s fitness and arts credits. The Harper Government also introduced the Universal Child Care Benefit which pays $1200 per child as taxable income to parents. According to Robert M. Haig and Henry Simons income is defined as values of commodities and services that a citizen consume minus or plus any change in net worth in a given period of time. This definition of income is commonly known as Haig-Simons definition of income. In this contest both outflow and inflow of resources are taxable (Hale, 2002). Given that children bellow the age of 18 do not have any activities that generate inc ome but have activities that require resources it will be unfair if their consumptions are taxed equal to the grownups. When parents or guardians spend money on commodities and services that relate to the upbringing of their children, there is a certain amount of money that is taxed. This might make life harder for families with children, especially those with low income. This explains the necessity of the Canada Child Tax Benefit. The Canada Child Tax Benefit highly contributes to the horizontal equity in the Canadian tax system. Horizontal equity in taxation refers to equal taxation of individuals with the same amount of income. In a case where two people have equal gross income, people with children will be taxed more. This is because they always have to spend more as compared to the childless individual. The increased expenditure is because they have extra person to take care of. The Canada Child Tax Benefit creates equality by making sure that those with children get some tax r elief thus making their general taxation almost the same to that of people who do not have children (Hale, 2002). This makes sure that no income earner is subjected to unfair taxation. It also ensures that the low income earners have an easy time bringing up their children. The Canada Child Tax Benefit can also contribute to vertical equity in taxation. Vertical equity is a principle which states that citizens with higher income should always pay more taxes as compared to those with low