General Daniel Harvey Hill in the Civil War

General Daniel Harvey Hill in the Civil War Daniel Harvey Hill: Early Life Career: Born in the York District of South Carolina on July 21, 1821, Daniel Harvey Hill was the son Solomon and Nancy Hill.   Educated locally, Hill received an appointment to West Point in 1838 and  graduated four years later in the same class as  James Longstreet,  William Rosecrans,  John Pope, and  George Sykes.   Ranked 28th in a class of 56, he accepted a commission in the 1st US Artillery.   With  the outbreak of the  Mexican-American War  four years later, Hill traveled south with  Major General Winfield Scotts army.   During the campaign against Mexico City, he earned a brevet promotion to captain for his performance at the  Battles of Contreras  and  Churubusco.   A brevet to major followed his actions at the  Battle of Chapultepec. Daniel Harvey Hill - Antebellum Years: In 1849, Hill elected to resign his commission and left the 4th US Artillery to accept a teaching post at Washington College in Lexington, VA.   While there, he befriended Thomas J. Jackson who was then serving as a professor at the Virginia Military Institute.   Actively engaged in education over the next decade, Hill also taught at Davidson College before receiving an appointment as superintendent of the North Carolina Military Institute.   In 1857, his ties to Jackson tightened when his friend  married his sisters wife.   Skilled in mathematics, Hill was well-known in the South for his texts on the subject. Daniel Harvey Hill - The Civil War Begins: With the beginning of the Civil War in April 1861, Hill received command of the 1st North Carolina Infantry on May 1.   Dispatched north to the Virginia Peninsula, Hill and his men played a key role in defeating Major General Benjamin Butlers Union forces at the Battle of Big Bethel on June 10.   Promoted to brigadier general the following month, Hill moved through a number of posts in Virginia and North Carolina later that year and into early 1862.   Elevated to major general on March 26, he assumed command of a division in General Joseph E. Johnstons army in Virginia.   As Major General George B. McClellan moved to the Peninsula with the Army of the Potomac in April, Hills men took part in opposing the Union advance at the Siege of Yorktown. Daniel Harvey Hill - Army of Northern Virginia: In late May, Hills division played a central role in the Battle of Seven Pines.   With the ascent of General Robert E. Lee to command of the Army of Northern Virginia, Hill saw action during the Seven Days Battles in late June and early July including Beaver Dam Creek, Gaines Mill, and Malvern Hill.   As Lee moved north following the campaign, Hill and his division received orders to remain in the vicinity of Richmond.   While there, he was tasked with negotiating an agreement for the exchange of prisoners of war. Working with Union Major General John A. Dix, Hill concluded the Dix-Hill Cartel on July 22.   Rejoining Lee following the Confederate victory at Second Manassas, Hill moved north into Maryland. While north of the Potomac, Hill exercised independent command and his men comprised the armys rearguard as it moved north and west.   On September 14, his troops defended Turners and Foxs Gaps during the Battle of South Mountain.   Three days later, Hill performed well at the Battle of Antietam as his men turned back Union assaults against the sunken road.   Following the Confederate defeat, he retreated south with his division serving in Jacksons Second Corps.   On December 13, Hills men saw limited action during the Confederate victory at the Battle of Fredericksburg. Daniel Harvey Hill - Sent West: In April 1863, Hill departed the army to begin recruiting duty in North Carolina.   Following the death of Jackson after the Battle of Chancellorsville a month later, he was irritated when Lee did not appoint him to corps command.   After protecting Richmond from Union efforts, Hill instead received orders to join General Braxton Braggs Army of Tennessee with the provisional rank of lieutenant general.   Taking command of a corps consisting of the divisions of Major Generals Patrick Cleburne and John  C. Breckinridge, he led it effectively at the Battle of Chickamauga that September.   In the wake of the triumph, Hill and several other senior officers openly expressed their unhappiness with Braggs failure to capitalize on the victory.   Visiting the army to resolve the dispute, President Jefferson Davis, a longtime friend of Bragg, found in the commanding generals favor.   When the Army of Tennessee underwent a reorganization, Hill was intentionally left without a comma nd.   In addition, Davis decided not to confirm his promotion his promotion to lieutenant general. Daniel Harvey Hill - Later War: Reduced to major general, Hill served as volunteer aide-de-camp in the  Department of North Carolina and Southern Virginia in 1864.   On January 21, 1865, he assumed command of the  District of Georgia, Department of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.   Possessing few resources, he moved north and led a division in Johnstons army during the final weeks of the war.   Taking part in the Battle of Bentonville in late March, he surrendered with the rest of the army at Bennett Place the following month.    Daniel Harvey Hill - Final Years: Settling in Charlotte, NC in 1866, Hill edited a magazine for three years.   Returning to education, he became president of the University of Arkansas in 1877.   Known for his effective administration, he also taught classes in philosophy and political economy.   Resigning in 1884 due to health issues, Hill settled in Georgia.   A year later, he accepted the presidency of the  Georgia Agriculture and Mechanical College.   In this post until August 1889, Hill again stepped down due to ill health.   Dying at Charlotte on September 23, 1889, he was buried at the Davidson College Cemetery. Selected Sources: Civil War: Daniel Harvey HillCMHLC: Daniel Harvey HillNorth Carolina History Project: Daniel Harvey Hill

Strategic management analysis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words - 1

Strategic management analysis - Essay Example The company is the largest coffee chain store in the world and has its operations in 61 countries with more than 20000 stores. The product portfolio of Starbucks includes hot and cold drinks, sandwiches, coffee beans, snacks, pastries, etc. The company has its foundation in Seattle long time back in 1971 as a roaster and retailer of local coffee bean and has expanded to a large extent since then. The company is the market leader in its coffee segment and its basic strategies are competence based strategy and the focus strategy based on which it adds value to its products and establishes the image of luxury and elegance (About Us 2012). The report presents the strategic management analysis of Starbucks considering its international segment out of the three segments. The country chosen in its international segment is UK. Starbucks entered the UK market in 1998 with the investment of $83 million and launch of more than 60 stores (Lussier 2008). The present coffee shop market environment of UK is very competitive with presence of multiple players in the market including branded coffee shops, independent retail stores and small coffee stores presenting a tough competition to Starbucks (Weston 2009). The report analyses the external environment of Starbucks with respect to UK coffee market, strategic capability of the company and the strategic fit with the help of suitable models such as Porter’s five forces, value chain analysis and PESTEL analysis. Task A (1): Analysis of Starbucks external environment Macro-environment: PESTEL Analysis Political: Impact 3 of 5- Coffee beans is grown in the developing countries. The major aspects about which the discussions keep going on in the UK political environment are work conditions and child labor. The political influence is also high through tariffs and taxes (Press Release – Project Cafe11 UK 2011). Economic: Impact 4 of 5-The major business challenge for the industry as a whole is related to the economic rec ession of 2008. Owing to the recession period, consumers have become much more cautious with their discretionary expenditures due to the presence of high unemployment and debts on individuals (Weston 2009). Socio-cultural: Impact 5 of 5- People in UK spends more and more on coffee. It is included in their trend to go out and have a cup of coffee. The expenditure on tea by UK people is 623 million pounds, while on coffee it is 738 million pounds. Customers visit the coffee shops not only for having a coffee drink but also for sitting down and have a relaxed time out of their daily hectic routine (The Future of the Coffee Market 2012). Technological: Impact 4 of 5- Technology has become advanced as better as well as cheaper coffee machines are available to make a good coffee at home, for instance Senseo. Environmental: Impact 3 of 5- There is a considerable increase in the environmental awareness due to which coffee companies in UK have to remain concerned about the way their coffee b eans are produced and roasted, the way of the designing of the supply chain and the manner in which they prepare and finally sell their coffee products (Weston 2009). Legal: Impact 3 of 5-

Chinas Historical Dynasties Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Chinas Historical Dynasties - Assignment Example During the Sui Dynasty, a lot of progress was made in China. For instance, the dynasty led to the unification of the whole nation making the society more stable and peaceful for economic and political development. Apart from agricultural acreage increasing significantly, the skills industry made advances. The economic activities, as well as agricultural practices during this dynasty, contributed to the development of Grand Canal. The end of this dynasty was followed by the emergence of many other dynasties including the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) under the leadership of Zhu Yuanzhang. This dynasty, however, started to collapse under Emperor Yang, who led a luxurious as well as a corrupt life. His engagement in occasional wars made the country fall into misery. The Wagang Army together with the rebellion peasants groups made Sui’s regime unstable. In addition to this, the strangling of Emperor Yang led to the complete collapse of the dynasty.During the Sui Dynasty, a lot of progr ess was made in China. For instance, the dynasty led to the unification of the whole nation making the society more stable and peaceful for economic and political development. Apart from agricultural acreage increasing significantly, the skills industry made advances. The economic activities, as well as agricultural practices during this dynasty, contributed to the development of Grand Canal. The end of this dynasty was followed by the emergence of many other dynasties including the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) under the leadership of Zhu Yuanzhang. This dynasty, however, started to collapse under Emperor Yang, who led a luxurious as well as a corrupt life. His engagement in occasional wars made the country fall into misery. The Wagang Army together with the rebellion peasants groups made Sui’s regime unstable. In addition to this, the strangling of Emperor Yang led to the complete collapse of the dynasty. The Ming Dynasty is claimed to the peak of wall building in China. The Min g court built walls in the north that measured more than 4,600 miles. In addition to adding more miles, the emperors in this dynasty ordered for the enlargement of previous dynasties’ walls into multiple-line walls. This dynasty is also associated with the construction of the greatest fleet in the 15th century; the dynasty was marked by the extensive expansion of the Chinese commerce to other markets in the world.Spiritual traditions description of Chinese history

Professional Portfolio Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 5750 words

Professional Portfolio - Assignment Example With his history of asthma, he was also manifesting anxiety over possible asthma attacks. His anxiety also put him in danger of a possible asthma attack. (42 words) After discharge, he was set to be discharged back to his home with his wife as his primary care giver. His wife is 70 years old, arthritic and has severe memory problems. She has difficulty moving around the house, but is determined to provide care to her husband. (48 words) Patient needs a nebulizer (salbutamol) in order to ease his chest congestion and speed-up his recovery. He also needs to complete 7-days of antibiotics in order to ensure complete recovery and prevent any relapse of his lower respiratory tract infection. (40 words) The patient is concerned about his prolonged recovery and possible asthma attacks. The carer is concerned about the patient’s difficulty in breathing which may be difficult to manage without medical assistance. (31 words) Patient needs to be referred to a respiratory therapist for further assessment of his coughing. He also needs a social worker who can assist in arranging his care and his daily activities. A private nurse who can assist his wife in the administration of medications and in the nebulization process can also be retained. (54 words) The patient also needs to be referred to his general practitioner for follow-up check-up on the progress of his recovery. He also needs to be referred to a private nurse who can help in the nebulisation and monitor his condition during instances when breathing may be difficult. (47 words) The wife may not be the best care giver for the patient because she is also senile and can sometimes be forgetful in her duties as carer. The wife has also admitted that she is concerned about her husband’s condition and that she does not know how to handle her husband’s condition, especially where difficulties in breathing and asthma attacks would occur. (62 words) The

Administrative law in Public Policy Essay Example for Free

Administrative law in Public Policy Essay The manholes are public utilities that are owned by municipals, regional authorities, or even companies which are hired to maintain them.   They are mainly used as access points to underground utility vaults for sewers, electricity, telephone storm drains and gas (Buckley, 2004). A fall into a manhole caused by negligence is cause enough to sue.   In this case if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that if the authority in charge of that particular network of manhole into which you fell did not properly maintain or inspect the manholes, then, you may stand a chance of winning the case.    The ‘person’ to be sued in this case would be the authority responsible for the particular public utility, for which that particular manhole is used for (Buckley, 2004). To win, you would have to offer sufficient evidence to prove that the Authority in question had actual or constructive notice of the condition of the manhole as required by the utilities service facilities exception to governmental immunity act which provides that, â€Å"A dangerous condition of the facilities of steam, sewer water way, except that the claimant to recover must establish that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred and the local agency had actual notice under the circumstance of the dangerous condition at a sufficient time prior to the event to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition†, as per sec. 8542 (b) (5) (Buckley, 2004).   Failure to prove this would result in a compulsory no suit. Reference Buckley, W. Okent, C. (2004). Torts and Personal Injury Law (The west Legal studies series) New York: Clifton Park: Delmar Learning.

Transcendentalism And A Belief In A higher Power :: essays research papers

Transcendentalism and A Belief In A "Higher Power" We do not have good reasons to believe in something transcendental. Most of the arguments in favor of God, or a so-called "higher power" are based on faith and emotion, and not a clear logical argument. In fact, these arguments are often in favor of throwing logic out the window. In many ways, this question is similar to someone attempting to prove the existence of an invisible elephant. It is far easier to prove that the elephant does not exist than it is to prove that it does. Socrates' principle of examination states that we must carefully examine all things. The tools we humans use to do this are logic and the scientific method. In order to believe in something transcendental, you cannot examine your beliefs using logic and science. If you do, there is no way to prove the existence of a higher power. The primary argument against the existence of a Judeo-Christian all- knowing, all-powerful, righteous God is the argument from evil. This argument argues against the presence of a higher power using facts of ordinary life. This argument states that most would agree that some of the pain and suffering (evil) in this world is unnecessary. To be considered a necessary evil, the occurrence must be the only way to produce something good, which outweighs the evil. Many events, such as infant deaths, would not be classified in this category. If such an all-knowing deity existed, it states, He would know that this evil was occurring. If He was all-powerful, He would have the power to stop this evil. If He was righteous, He would stop the evil from occurring Therefore, the existence of evil cannot be compatible with the existence of this type of God. The primary response to the argument from evil is the appeal to human freedom. This argument states that God sees evil as necessary so that we humans may be free to choose our own path. The fatal flaw in this argument is that there are evils that exist not as a direct result of human choice. Natural evils such as floods, earthquakes, and tornadoes serve no purpose according to this definition, and are therefore unnecessary evils. A theist might respond to this with another weak rebuttal, stating that every evil produces compassion and understanding in others, and creates good in that regard. This is an overly positive, almost delusional view of evil. Almost everyone will be able to come up with at least one example of someone who has suffered an evil that has not directly or indirectly led to anything good.

Hunter V Moss Criticisms

Certainty of subject matter and the critcisms of hunter v moss When creating an express trust knight and knight articulated that there must be certainty of subject matter, certainty of intention and certainty of objects. Certainty of subject matter is where there must be an identification of the trust property and certainty as to whom is which part of the trust property to be held. In relation to uncertainty of beneficial interests, the trust will fail where the method of distribution is stipulated by the sethlow but cannot take effect (Boyce v Boyce).However the trust will not fail where the method of distribution is not stipulated by the sethlow leaving the court to intervene (re napton). If there is an effect of lack of certainty in respect of the beneficial interests in the trust property a resulting trust will be imposed because equity hates a vacuum, the trust property will therefore be held on trust for the sethlow or if he is dead for his estate.In regards to identification o f the trust property If there is a lack of a proper identification of the trust property, the trust will fail because the property never leaves the sethlow and there is no need for a resulting trust. However the term residue estate will not fail a trust because it means all the remaining trust property. It is quantifiable A problem occurs where the wording used is not sufficiently certain as to know what property is intended to be held on trust and where the property that is held on trust is not segregated by the sethlow from a larger amount of similar property he owns. If a trust fund is not segregated then there will be no certainty of subject matter and the trust will fail. The problem is identifying the property that constitutes the trust fund. The property must be identifiable otherwise the courts would not know which property is to be distributed to the beneficiaries. It must be shown that the sethlow intended to create a trust over specified property. In Palmer v Simmons â₠¬Ëœthe bulk of her estate’ was not sufficiently certain and ‘remaining part of what is left’ also (sprange v barnard).However in Re Golay the court looked at the tester’s intention’. To deduce what ‘reasonable income’ meant Oliver J articulated the orthodox approach or rule in re London wine where property must be segregated form a lager mass of similar property for there to be a valid trust he said â€Å"To create a trust it must be possible to ascertain with certainty not only what the interest of the beneficiary is to be but to what property it is to attach. â€Å"The ‘mere declaration that a given number of animals out of the flock would be held on trust would not create a trust’. This approach was followed in re Goldcorp which affirmed that property must be separately identifiable before it can be held on a valid trust. The contention arose with Hunter v Moss which did not follow the orthodox approach where Hunter wa s entitled 50 out of moss’s 1000 shares. Under the Goldcorp rule there would be no trust because the property was not separated however Dillon J said there was a valid trust.The rationale for this controversial decision was that it would have made no difference which 50 shares would have been given because they were all identical. So here there was no need to segregate the property if it was intangible. The problem with this case is that Dillon is giving the trustee of the will who only has legal title subject to the terms of the trust an executor status, i. e. putting him in the shoes of the sethlow.This is a problem because the executor acquires legal title in all of the deceased’s person’s property with a power to make a division of property in accordance with the terms of the will as personal representative of the deceased. Whereas the inter vivos trustee makes a division subject to the terms of the trust. So inter vivos trustee cannot know what property fal ls under his remit whereas the executor knows that he has title in the whole property formally vested in the testator so there is no uncertainty of subject matter.Dillon did not make a distinction between tangible and intangible property. But did say that â€Å"the London wine case concerned chattels and this case concerned a title over shares† This case has been applied in Holland v Newbury where the securities were intangible property and therefore did not require segregation. This may mean that Hunter v Moss is precedent because it was resolved in the C of A whereas Goldcorp was decided in the Privy Council and can only be deemed a persuasive authority.However the earlier case of MacJordan v Brookemount may have supported Dillon because the judge thought it was not necessary to segregate part of the bank account from a larger amount of money in the same account. However here there was no identifiable bank account in the first place to establish a trust so it was void. Othe r problems with Hunter v Moss is that it ignores traditional property law which requires there to be specific and identifiable property which is the subject to a trust. There was only a valid trust because there were ufficient shares to satisfy the claim. The C of A could not have decided this in Goldcorp because there were more claims than there was property to satisfy them. If there was a distinction to be made between cases in which it would be valid to hold one trust valid despite insufficient segregation and another trust invalid on grounds of insufficient segregation it would not be based on whether the property was tangible or intangible but rather whether the legal owner of that property was solvent or insolvent which in Goldcorp he was insolvent..So it seems Dillon lj's reasoning is ill founded. Another problem is that why should there be a specific rule for intangible property. Tangible property could be subject to the same rules. In Caswell v Powell â€Å"bushels of whea t are indistinguishable† and that in relation to a 1000 ball bearings it does not matter if 500 were separated because they would be all the same. So the distinction based on tangible and intangible property is weak and that it would be better to base a distinction on whether the trustee was solvent or insolvent.The reaction to Hunter v Moss has been mixed Alistair Hudson says that â€Å"Hunter v Moss is concerned with achieving justice between the parties†. Because Goldcorp concerned the allocation of property whereas HAUNTER V Moss the court was concerned with preventing the employer from benefiting from a breach of contract. However David Hayton argues that Dillon’s judgment may well come to be stigmatised as determined perilously close to vacation.He highlights questions left open by hunter v Moss Because, Moss declared himself trustee of 50 of his shares, an obvious problem arises because there is no certainty as to which 50 of the 950 shares the trust relat es. Thus, if Moss subsequently sells 50 shares how do the Revenue know whether he is selling his own shares, so that he is chargeable to capital gains tax, or if he is selling Hunter's shares so that Hunter is so chargeable?If the proceeds of sale are profitably or detrimentally reinvested does the new investment belong in equity to Hunter or Moss, bearing in mind that it is only if Moss is acting wrongfully in respect of specific shares that Hunter can take advantage of the equitable tracing rules to apply whichever of them suits him best? Can Hunter obtain an injunction to prevent Moss selling or mortgaging any shares or only more than 900 shares? Does Hunter really have any specific proprietary interest capable of assignment?Despite these criticisms Jill Martin says that Hunter v Moss appears fair, sensible and workable also Allison Jones says the decision is a sensible one. She says it seems absurd that there could be a valid trust of the entire contents of a bank account which could then be traced wrongly into another account of the trustee but that there cannot be a valid trust of part of the funds in an account. But even Therese Villiers says that â€Å"the flexibility provided by Hunter v. Moss may yet prove to have deleterious effects† Hancock v Watson exception?