Recent orders
Union Strategy For Winning The Civil War
Union Strategy For Winning The Civil War
Soldiers and officers are the basic ingredients of all armies. Their strategic dispositions, how they are deployed, what grand strategy directs their movements largely determine the outcome of wars. It is not easy to reconstitute the general air of confusion and uncertainty in which the initial Union strategy took shape. There was a sharp division in the Cabinet and in the army as well over the appropriate strategy to pursue in attempting to subdue the South. At least three grand strategies were proposed. The first, the one favored by William Seward, the secretary of state and the most influential man in the Cabinet, was what Welles called “the border strategy.” The notion here was to establish “borders” around the periphery of the Confederacy, assure the Southerners of the goodwill of the North toward them, and wait for pro-Union sentiment in the South to manifest itself and lead to a negotiated peace. This strategy virtually conceded the slavery issue in favor of restoring the Union. The strategy proposed by Welles likewise rested on the assumption that there were large numbers of Unionists in the South, simply waiting for indications of Northern support to declare themselves. “Instead of halting on the borders, building entrenchments, and repelling indiscriminately and treating as Rebels–enemies–all, Union as well as disunion, men . . . we should,” Welles wrote,”. . . penetrate their territory, nourish and protect the Union sentiment, and create and strengthen a national feeling counter to Secession.. . . Instead of holding back, we should be aggressive and enter their territory,” Welles added. Both strategies were based on an overestimation of the strength of Union sentiment. Moreover, Welles’s strategy ignored the fact that invasion of an enemy’s territory invariably arouses the most intense hostility on the part of those invaded. A third “strategy,” one almost indistinguishable in its practical effect from that of Welles, was based on the assumption that only an overwhelming display of superior force demonstrated by an invasion of the South at every vulnerable point could force the Confederacy back into the Union. It was this latter policy that was, on the whole, followed, but the emotional predisposition to the first strategy on the part of many Northerners in and out of the army frequently blunted the effect of the invasion strategy and in the most important theater of the war–Virginia–rendered it a nullity. General Scott himself was for what Welles termed “a defensive policy.” As one general put it to Welles: “We must erect our batteries on the eminences in the vicinity of Washington and establish our military lines; frontiers between the belligerents, as between the countries of Continental Europe, are requisite.” As the third strategy became clearly the strategy that Lincoln was determined to pursue–aggressive penetration of the South–the inevitable next question was how was that strategy to be best effected. One needs, first of all, to have reference to the map of the South which constitutes the endpapers of this volume. There it is seen that the South had two major lines of vulnerability: several thousand miles of virtually undefended seacoast running from Norfolk, Virginia, around the tip of Florida and along the Gulf of Mexico to New Orleans and, in the West, almost a thousand miles of the Mississippi River, stretching from St. Louis to New Orleans, which constituted a line of access into the Deep South and, for the Southerners, an obstacle separating them from their trans-Mississippi allies–Texas, Arkansas, and Missouri. Moreover, the Ohio River entered the Mississippi at Cairo, Illinois, and fifty miles to the east of that conjunction, the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers emptied into the Ohio, coming from a southeasterly direction parallel to each other and roughly parallel to the Mississippi. The South had to defend that river network at all costs. In the hands of the North it would leave the South vulnerable to invasion from a hundred points. New Orleans was the hinge of the lower South–the point where the coastline joined the great arterial waterway of the Mississippi. The Northern strategy was thus, like all proper strategies, dictated in large part by the terrain. Plans were made immediately for three amphibious operations, two combined land-sea operations, directed at vulnerable points on the North and South Carolina coast–one at Roanoke Island, the other at Port Royal, just south of Charleston; the other expedition was directed at New Orleans itself. Meanwhile, the Army of the Potomac, with McClellan in command, was organized with the mission of capturing Richmond. As the months passed, a series of additional armies were formed along the line of the Ohio and upper Mississippi–the armies of the Ohio, the Cumberland, the Frontier, Kansas, the Mississippi, the Mountain, the Southwest, the Tennessee, the West Tennessee, and, near the end of the war, the Shenandoah, finally fifteen in all (the Confederacy formed twenty-four “armies”). The real story of the war–the battles and campaigns that finally brought it to its bloody conclusion–took place far away from Washington and Richmond, at Shiloh, Tennessee, Vicksburg, Mississippi, Chickamauga, Georgia, and in a dozen other such engagements. But the facts that the capitals of the North and South were so close together, little more than a hundred miles apart, and that the Confederate capital was, moreover, in the extreme northeastern corner of the geographical area covered by the Confederacy produced a strange distortion, first in the war itself and then in our comprehension of it. The grand strategy developed by Lincoln, his Cabinet, and General Winfield Scott and the actual deployment of Union armies certainly took account of the points of Southern vulnerability, but the focus of public attention remained fixed on the two armies that confronted each other in Virginia–the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia.
Unhealthy Food And Prices
Unhealthy Food And Prices
Researchers have been reporting that average Americans lack of a proper diet has little to do with their willpower. According to their findings, having a healthy diet is expensive for an average American and they cannot afford it. The nutrient lacking in a typical American diet includes Potassium, fiber, vitamin D, and calcium. Potassium according to individuals is expensive. Studies indicate that to include potassium in diet Americans will have to increase their yearly budget by $380. On the other hand, additional Vitamin D and fiber requires an increment of $ 127 (Zied, 2010). In accordance, proponents use such data to indicate the reasons additional diet will be expensive to them. An additional of more than 20% of the spending of an Average American is expensive to some individuals, and they will have to live on unhealthy diet.
Studies indicate that adding nutrients on food will lead to an increase in the cost of food. On the other hand, there would be a decrease in the cost of food by adding sugars and other fatty foods. This is a clear indication that once Americans embark on saving money, they are likely to eat fatty or sugary foods. The consequence of this is a community at the risk of obesity especially children. In accordance, despite Americans indicating their willingness to eat in a healthy manner, they cannot afford the healthy foods. Studies that the proponents of this arguments use are credible. Poor Americans are at a risk of eating unhealthier food that their rich counterparts. This is because of that fact that they cannot afford to increase their budget to include the healthy foods.
Despite the credible studies that proponents of this argument use, they fail to include the fact that it does depend on the formula that they use to calculate the cost. If calculation concentrate on calorie per cost, as has been the case in previous studies, then high calorie foods are obviously cheaper. On the other hand, taking the price per weight indications are that vegetables, grains, and dairy products are cheaper. Calorie content does not indicate the amount of food that an individual will eat (Zied, 2010). It does not indicate the feeling of fullness that an individual will feel. However, the weight of the food that an individual feeds on is a clear indicator. In accordance, it is not accurate to report that high calorie foods are cheap based on their calorie content.
Unhealthy eating is a rather a question of willingness, as opposed to the cost of that food. It is not true to argue that healthy food is expensive. There is a possibility of individuals to eat potassium at a low cost. Bananas, for instance, are rich in potassium are not expensive. If an individual swaps a bag of chips with a banana not only are they fuller, they also save money. The perception that unhealthy foods are cheaper than healthy food is a misconception that channels more Americans into buying fast foods (Zied, 2010). The result of this is that most Americans especially kids are at the risk of being obese. However, according to discussions contained herein, there is sufficient evidence that healthy foods are cheap. In accordance, Americans should buy health foods not only to improve on their diet but also, to save money. Triple bottom line is that Americans chose to eat unhealthy foods, and that is why many people are fat.
References
Zied, E. (2010). The cost of Healthy Living. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.
Unhealthy Eating
Unhealthy Eating
Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
Diet is the most critical factor in the health of an individual. Eating healthy foods allows us to live a full and healthy life. A healthy diet means less visit s to the doctor and a more comfortable lifestyle. It is no secret that today more than ever, many people’s diets are unhealthy and this has resulted in infinite problems. The most worrying fact is perhaps the fact that even young children are overweight or obese, and this is a sure sign of serious health problems in their future. Are we helpless in this situation? Most of the research carried out has clearly outlined the causes of unhealthy diets and what can be done to avoid it. Despite all this, little has been done to adequately address the matter. Coming up with a solution will involve scrutiny of the causes of unwholesome diets such as advertising and poor regulation as well as what can be done to improve the situation.
A lot of articles and journals have highlighted the issue of obesity and overweight in many regions of the world, and Canada is among these countries. Children today would rather have MacDonald’s for dinner rather than eat vegetables. The children grow up not knowing the value of healthy feeding habits, and this will cost them dearly in the future. An iPolitics journal sheds light on the direness of the situation stating, “In Canada, an unhealthy diet is the single leading risk factor for death. Millions of Canadians have diet-related disease, costing the public purse about $26 billion in 2015.”(Bronson & Reynolds 2018). Such a statement should be enough to galvanize the whole country into action, but this is regrettably not the case.
To further highlight the seriousness of the debate on healthy diets, we shall begin by examining some of the effects of unhealthy food. “Nearly half of all adults have preventable chronic diseases attributable to modifiable risk factors. Promoting healthier lifestyles for all—rich and poor—could cut deaths from cancer, diabetes, and heart disease in half.” (Gostin 2016). These include obesity and overweight, which makes it difficult for a person to carry out the most mundane tasks such as walking up a flight of stairs, taking a walk or cleaning their home. Obesity leads to further health complication such as heart disease, high cholesterol levels, hypertension, among many other life-threatening conditions. Being overweight also lowers a person’s self-esteem considerably, and this is prevalent among children. In school, children can be bullied for their weight, and such children’s confidence will plummet, affecting their performance in school. Interaction with other people even among adults is awkward for obese people as they have a negative self-image. Experiences like this can cause depression among the obese and the overweight, further complicating the situation. From all these, it is clear that unhealthy diets will prove to be quite costly in the long run.
It is clear that this problem begins right at home. It is the duty of parents to ensure that their kids take balanced diets with an adequate amount of fruits, vegetables, milk, and other nutritious foods. Balanced, healthy diets will ensure that the children grow as they should and develop healthy bodies and a strong immune system. Parents are often too busy at work and leave the matter f taking care of their children to nannies who care little what the children eat. When the parents come home from work exhausted, they do not have the energy to fight with their young ones on eating vegetables and fruits. It is a known fact that children find fruits and vegetables distasteful, but it is all about maintaining a healthy diet and teaching them the importance of a balanced amount of all kinds of food. “Intervention studies suggest that parents are often the key to successfully changing child eating behaviors, and many interventions focus on feeding.” (Miller et al. 2018)
The media also plays a huge role in promoting unhealthy habits, and this primarily affects gullible young children and young people. Cartoon characters can often be observed talking about pizza, ice-cream, burgers, candy, chocolates among others, and this leads the kids to glorify such kinds of diet and consider them to be cool. Children are known to have a preference for salty and sugary foods as explained by a study. “Children are especially vulnerable to current food environments because they have a biological preference for salty and sweet foods. Children’s recognition of food brand logos increases with age, and overweight children are more likely to recognize fast food restaurant logos compared with other food logos.” (Kraak & Story 2015). With constant badgering and advertisements form fast food franchises such as the world-famous MacDonald’s, it is no wonder children demand food from these places. This also affects teens and young adults who are faced with peer pressure in choosing the kinds of diet they take.
Some of the suggested solutions include regulating media on the kind of diet they promote especially to young children. Advertisement for fast food should be minimized especially around children such as n kids programs. Efforts should also be made in encouraging healthy diets; for example, a well-known cartoon character can encourage the kids to take a daily portion of fruits and vegetables. The influence that these cartoon characters and other influential kid’s figures have on their choices should not be underestimated. A child may refuse to listen to their parents but look to their favorite cartoon character. “The IOM and US White House Task Force (WHTF) to Prevent Childhood Obesity recommended that licensed cartoon characters should be used only to promote healthy foods to children.” (Kraak & Story 2015).
Parents and teachers also have a significant role to play towards instilling the value of healthy diets in children. Kids should be taught for a young age how important it is to take healthy foods even when they are not the sweetest. Children should be motivated by explaining the benefits of balanced diets which include good health, positive self-image and the ability to go about their daily life with ease. Some obese and overweight children find it challenging to run around in the playground with their peers, and this might make others make fun of them, thus lowering their self-esteem. Teachers can influence eating behavior among children by persuading them to take up healthy eating as a lifestyle. Healthy foods including vegetables and fruits should be served in school cafeterias.
The government should take actions such as increasing taxes on some types of food that contain high levels of surer, sodium and starch. The effectiveness of this measures is highlighted in a World Health Organization publication, “In practice, a tax of about 10% on sugar-sweetened beverages in Mexico and an increase in the tax on such beverages in Chile, from 13% to 18%, are both estimated to have reduced national consumption by about 7%” (Thow et al. 2018). Other government regulations should also come in the form of labeling requirements where packaging shoes that a product contains higher than recommended levels of a nutrient.
Unhealthy diets have a significant impact on all areas of our lives from our mental, physical and social wellbeing. The root of the problem is the home where parents and guardians slack off in ensuring that their kids get a balanced and healthy diet. If this is allowed to continue and is reinforced by aggressive advertising of fast food and peer pressure, the risk of diseases and other challenges grows by the day. Everybody has a role to play form parents, teachers and the government. Public awareness and promotion of healthy ways of living including diets are essential in combating the global menace of obesity that results mainly from unhealthy diets.
References
Bronson, D. & Reynolds, J. (2018). Big ideas or Big Food? It’s time for Canada’s Healthy Eating Strategy. iPolitics.Retrieved from https://ipolitics.ca/2018/11/05/big-ideas-or-big-food-its-time-for-canadas-healthy-eating-strategy/Gostin, L. O. (2016). “Big Food” Is Making America Sick. The Milbank Quarterly, 94(3), 480.
Kraak, V. I., & Story, M. (2015). Influence of food companies’ brand mascots and entertainment companies’ cartoon media characters on children’s diet and health: a systematic review and research needs. Obesity reviews, 16(2), 107-126.
Miller, A. L., Miller, S. E., & Clark, K. M. (2018). Child, Caregiver, Family, and Social-Contextual Factors to Consider when Implementing Parent-Focused Child Feeding Interventions. Current nutrition reports, 7(4), 303-309.
Thow, A. M., Downs, S. M., Mayes, C., Trevena, H., Waqanivalu, T., & Cawley, J. (2018). Fiscal policy to improve diets and prevent noncommunicable diseases: from recommendations to action. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 96(3), 201.