Battle of Fort Henry in the Civil War

Battle of Fort Henry in the Civil War The Battle of Fort Henry took place February 6, 1862, during the American Civil War (1861-1865) and was one of the first actions of  Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grants campaign in Tennessee. With the start of the Civil War, Kentucky declared neutrality and stated it would align against the first side to violate its territory. This occurred on September 3, 1861, when Confederate Major General Leonidas Polk directed troops under Brigadier General Gideon J. Pillow to occupy Columbus, KY on the Mississippi River. Responding to the Confederate incursion, Grant took the initiative and dispatched Union troops to secure Paducah, KY at the mouth of the Tennessee River two days later.   A Wide Front As events were unfolding in Kentucky, General Albert Sidney Johnston received orders on September 10 to assume command of all Confederate forces in the west. This required him to defend a line extending from the Appalachian Mountains west to the frontier. Lacking sufficient troops to hold the entirety of this distance, Johnston was compelled to disperse his men into smaller armies and attempt to defend those areas through which Union troops were likely to advance. This cordon defense saw him order Brigadier General Felix Zollicoffer to hold the area around the Cumberland Gap in the east with 4,000 men while in the west, Major General Sterling Price defended Missouri with 10,000 men. The center of the line was held by Polks large command which, due to Kentuckys neutrality earlier in the year, was based closer to the Mississippi. To the north, an additional 4,000 men led by Brigadier General Simon B. Buckner held Bowling Green, KY. To further protect central Tennessee, construction of two forts had commenced earlier in 1861. These were Forts Henry and Donelson which guarded the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers respectively. The locations for the forts were determined by Brigadier General Daniel S. Donelson and while the placement for the fort bearing his name was sound, his choice for Fort Henry left much to be desired. Construction of Fort Henry An area of low, swampy ground, the location of Fort Henry provided a clear field of fire for two miles down the river but was dominated by hills on the far shore. Though many officers opposed the location, construction on the five-sided fort began with slaves and the 10th Tennessee Infantry providing the labor. By July 1861, guns were being mounted in the forts walls with eleven covering the river and six protecting the landward approaches. Named  for Tennessee Senator Gustavus Adolphus Henry Sr., Johnston had desired to give command of the forts to Brigadier General Alexander P. Stewart but was overruled by Confederate President Jefferson Davis who instead selected Maryland native Brigadier General Lloyd Tilghman in December.  Assuming his post, Tilghman saw Fort Henry reinforced with a smaller fortification, Fort Heiman, which was constructed on the opposite bank. In addition, efforts were made to place torpedoes (naval mines) in the shipping channel near the fort. Armies Commanders Union Brigadier General Ulysses S. GrantFlag Officer Andrew Foote15,000 men7 ships Confederate Brigadier General Lloyd Tilghman3,000-3,400 Grant and Foote Move As the Confederates worked to complete the forts, Union commanders in the west were under pressure from President Abraham Lincoln to take offensive action. While Brigadier General George H. Thomas defeated Zollicoffer at the Battle of Mills Springs in January 1862, Grant was able to secure permission for a thrust up the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. Advancing with around 15,000 men in two divisions led Brigadier Generals John McClernand and Charles F. Smith, Grant was supported by Flag Officer Andrew Footes Western Flotilla of four ironclads and three timberclads (wooden warships). A Swift Victory Pressing up the river, Grant and Foote elected to strike at Fort Henry first. Arriving in the vicinity on February 4, Union forces began going ashore with McClernands division landing north of Fort Henry while Smiths men landed on the western shore to neutralize Fort Heiman. As Grant moved forward, Tilghmans position had become tenuous due to the forts poor location. When the river was at normal levels, the forts walls stood around twenty feet high, but heavy rains had led water levels to rise dramatically flooding the fort. As a result, only nine of the forts seventeen guns were usable. Realizing that the fort could not be held, Tilghman ordered Colonel Adolphus Heiman to lead the bulk of the garrison to the east to Fort Donelson and abandoned Fort Heiman. By February 5, only a party of gunners and Tilghman remained. Approaching Fort Henry the next day, Footes gunboats advanced with the ironclads in the lead. Opening fire, they exchanged shots with the Confederates for around seventy-five minutes. In the fighting, only USS Essex suffered meaningful damage when a shot hit its boiler as the low trajectory of the Confederate fire played into the strength of the Union gunboats armor. Aftermath With the Union gunboats closing and his fire largely ineffective, Tilghman decided to surrender the fort. Due to the flooded nature of the fort, a boat from the fleet was able to row directly into the fort to take Tilghman to USS Cincinnati. A boost to Union morale, the capture of Fort Henry saw Grant capture 94 men. Confederate losses in the fighting numbered around 15 killed and 20 wounded. Union casualties totaled around 40, with the majority aboard USS Essex. The capture of the fort opened the Tennessee River to Union warships. Quickly taking advantage, Foote dispatched his three timberclads to raid upstream. Gathering his forces, Grant began moving his army the twelve miles to Fort Donelson on February 12. Over the next several days, Grant won the Battle of Fort Donelson and capturing over 12,000 Confederates. The twin defeats at Forts Henry and Donelson knocked a gaping hole in Johnstons defensive line and opened Tennessee to Union invasion. Large-scale fighting would resume in April when Johnston attacked Grant at the Battle of Shiloh.

Kahn and Verifiability

Kahn and Verifiability Introduction Thomas Samuel Khun’s contribution to philosophy remains a significant milestone in nursing (and by extension, the field of science). Khun introduced the concept of â€Å"paradigm shift† in mainstream science by suggesting that scientific models undergo paradigm shifts (periodically) and therefore, the notion that scientific models develop in a linear manner is untrue.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Kahn and Verifiability specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More In this regard, Khun suggests that science cannot solely rely on objectivity but rather, by considering subjective aspects of the discipline as well (Klemke, Hollinger, Rudge, 1998). This paper analyzes Khun’s philosophy by evaluating how it revolutionized the philosophy of science. This paper also highlights how Khun’s philosophies helped the nursing practice, as opposed to hindering it. Finally, this paper evaluates if fals ification or verifiability provides a stable criterion for science, and if it is possible to have a significant statement without either of the two processes. How Khun Revolutionized the Philosophy of Science Khun’s contribution to science stretches through his achievements in the field. As explained above, one such achievement was his introduction of the concept of â€Å"paradigm shift,† not as an absolute operative principle of science but rather, as an important principle of science (Klemke, et al., 1998). Khun developed his principles by conducting a critical analysis of different individuals at MIT and Harvard. From these analyses, he opposed perverted science as â€Å"absolute as Baconian as over humanities idea† (Klemke, et al., 1998, p. 15). This was a good contribution of science. From these contributions, Khun remains a key figure of the dialectic in epistemology. How Khun’s Contribution helped Nursing Khun’s contribution to nursing stems from the revolutionary theory and its contribution to nursing. For many years, researchers held the opinion that nursing resembles revolutionary development models in other sciences (Dahnke Dreher, 2011). However, Khun changed this philosophy by evaluating different perceptions of health events in nursing and proposing that the existence of a single paradigm is unacceptable in the field. Many scholars accepted his view because nursing works by helping and caring for people who present different dynamics in care delivery. Therefore, Khun’s contribution has helped the nursing practice (as oppose to hindering it) because his views accommodated varying patient dynamics in nursing models (especially concerning the changing attitudes and different cultural dynamics influencing care delivery).Advertising Looking for essay on philosophy? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Falsification or Verification Khun’s arg ument of the functions of a scientific test mainly compares with Popper’s view on the same. Karl Popper was a respected philosopher but he greatly differed with Khun because he proposed that only falsification ensures the validity and reliability of scientific tests. Khun however maintained that scientific tests are supposed to affirm verification (as opposed to falsification) (Klemke, et al., 1998). Khun proposed that verification resembled â€Å"natural selection† in modern science because it established how the fitness of a theory is determined. Therefore, in a historical context, the process of verification identifies the most viable theory (among a pool of other similar theories). Khun meant that by verifying a theory, a scientist would easily establish the accuracy of a theory in defining reality. Therefore, contrary to proponents of falsification, Khun advocated for verifiability as the main criterion for evaluating theories. However, his assertions bore signifi cant flaws. Indeed, it is crucial to highlight why it is vital to eliminate the concept of verifiability because not all scientific evolutions gravitate towards an understandable goal of corresponding to reality. In fact, Khun agreed with scientists who considered this view to be unwarranted (Klemke, et al., 1998). Therefore, for any scientist to comprehend the dependability of a theory, they have to evaluate how it compares with falsification. Scientists deliberately use falsification for evaluating scientific paradigms because it is the only logical possible test for scientific selection (Klemke, et al., 1998). The criterion of falsification is therefore the missing link to Khun’s argument because a scientific theory differs from an ideological model because its hypotheses are amenable to falsification.  From the intrigues surrounding the debate of falsification and verification, it is safe to acknowledge the possibility of having a significant statement without verifying it. Measuring the falsification of a theory is therefore the main measure of understanding scientific paradigms. Therefore, based on the understanding of Khan’s flaw, falsification is a more suitable criterion of science. Consequently, scientists may make a significant scientific statement without verifying it. Conclusion After weighing the findings of this paper, it is crucial to acknowledge the contributions of Khun in science. His contribution to science also mirrors his contribution to nursing because his introduction of the concept of â€Å"paradigm shift† accommodates varying patient dynamics that occur in nursing. Patient dynamics manifest as a crucial factor in this analysis because nursing mainly focuses on caring for patients.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Kahn and Verifiability specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More In this regard, Khun’s contribution to nursing has helped the discipline , as opposed to hindering it. However, because not all scientific theories gravitate towards an understandable goal of corresponding with reality, falsification stands out as the more stable criterion for science. Therefore, it is possible to have a significant scientific paradigm without verifying it. References Dahnke, M. D Dreher, H. M. (2011). Philosophy of science for nursing practice:  concepts and application. New York: Springer. Klemke, E.D., Hollinger, R. Rudge. (1998). Introductory reading in the philosophy  of science (3rd ed). New York: Prometheus Books.

Andy Warhol as Designer Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Andy Warhol as Designer - Essay Example The essay "Andy Warhol as Designer" analyzes an American artist, Andy Warhol. Pop art is classified as postmodernism type of art. As a pop artist, Warhol was capable of using different art techniques including: blotted-line ink style or monoprints, hand-painting with paint drips, silk-screens, oxidation paintings, and Rorschach blots among others. Because of his personal desire to become a successful business artist, Warhol eventually concentrated on the use of silk-screen in mass producing his work of art. Discussing the differences in the motivating techniques adopted by the modernist and postmodernist artists is useful in terms of determining how Warhol is unique from other famous artists. The personality of an artist could affect the art technique used in a given art design. Knowing that Warhol has a strong detachment over emotional feelings to his environment, it is easier on the part of the readers to understand the factors that triggered Warhol to come up with a creative way o f reproducing a piece of art design. As part of the modern art movement which took place in England and America during the late 20th century, pop art involved using the popular imagery of the time as subject a matter for art. The movement was contemptuous and mocked many aspects of the modern world such as: comic strips, consumer products, and advertising through the use of celebrities. Andy Warhol – an American painter, printmaker and filmmaker earned the title â€Å"Pope of Pop Art† for playing an important role in pop art.