Major General Henry Heth in the American Civil War

Major General Henry Heth was Confederate commander during the Civil War who saw service both in Kentucky and with the Army of Northern Virginia. An early favorite of General Robert E. Lee, he saw action in many of the famed leaders campaigns in the East and is best remembered for initiating the action that led to the Battle of Gettysburg. Heth continued to lead a division in Lieutenant General Ambrose P. Hills Third Corps for the rest of the conflict. he remained with the army until its surrender at Appomattox Court House in April 1865. Early Life Career Born December 16, 1825 at Black Heath, VA, Henry Heth (pronounced heeth) was the son of John and Margaret Heth.  The grandson of a veteran of the American Revolution and son of a naval officer from the War of 1812, Heth attended private schools in Virginia before seeking a military career.  Appointed to the US Military Academy in 1843, his classmates included his boyhood friend Ambrose P. Hill as well as Romeyn Ayres, John Gibbon, and Ambrose Burnside. Proving a poor student, he matched his cousins, George Pickett, 1846 performance by graduating last in his class.  Commissioned as a brevet second lieutenant, Heth received orders to join the 1st US Infantry which was engaged in the Mexican-American War. Arriving south of the border later that year, Heth reached his unit after large-scale operations had concluded.  After participating in a number of skirmishes, he returned north the following year.   Assigned to the frontier, Heth moved through postings at  Fort Atkinson, Fort Kearny, and Fort Laramie.  Seeing action against the Native Americans, he earned a promotion to first lieutenant in June 1853.  Two years later, Heth was promoted to captain in the newly-formed 10th US Infantry.  That September, he earned recognition for leading a key flanking attack against the  Sioux during the Battle of Ash Hollow.  In 1858, Heth penned the US Armys first manual on marksmanship entitled  A System of Target Practice. Major General Henry Heth Rank: Major GeneralService: US Army, Confederate ArmyNickname(s): HarryBorn: December 16, 1825 at Black Heath, VADied: September 27, 1899 at Washington, DCParents: Captain John Heth and Margaret L. PickettSpouse: Harriet Cary SeldenChildren: Ann Randolph Heath, Cary Selden Heth, Henry Heth, Jr.Conflicts: Mexican-American War, Civil WarKnown For: Battle of Gettysburg (1863) The Civil War Begins With the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter and beginning of the Civil War in April 1861, Virginia left the Union.  After the departure of his home state, Heth resigned his commission in the US Army and accepted a captains commission in the Virginia Provisional Army.  Quickly advanced to lieutenant colonel, he briefly served as General Robert E. Lees quartermaster general in Richmond.  A critical time for Heth, he became one of the few officers to earn Lees patronage and was the only one referred to by his first name.   Made colonel of the 45th Virginia Infantry later year, his regiment was assigned to western Virginia. Operating in the Kanawha Valley, Heth and his men served under Brigadier General John B. Floyd.  Promoted to brigadier general on January 6, 1862, Heth led a small force entitled the Army of the New River that spring.   Engaging Union troops in May, he fought several defensive actions but was badly beaten on the 23rd when his command was routed near Lewisburg.  Despite this setback, Heths actions helped screen Major General Thomas Stonewall Jacksons campaign in the Shenandoah Valley.  Re-forming his forces, he continued to serve in the mountains until June when orders arrived for his command to join Major General Edmund Kirby Smith at Knoxville, TN.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Kentucky Campaign Arriving in Tennessee, Heths brigade began moving north in August as Smith marched to support General Braxton Braggs invasion of Kentucky.  Advancing into the eastern part of the state, Smith captured Richmond and Lexington before dispatching Heth with a division to menace Cincinnati.  The campaign ended when Bragg elected to withdraw south after the Battle of Perryville.   Rather than risk being isolated and defeated by Major General Don Carlos Buell, Smith joined with Bragg for the retreat back to Tennessee.  Remaining there through the fall, Heth assumed command of the Department of East Tennessee in January 1863.  The following month, after lobbying from Lee, he received an assignment to Jacksons corps in the Army of Northern Virginia.   Major General Henry Heth, CSA.   Library of Congress Chancellorsville Gettysburg Taking command of a brigade in his old friend Hills Light Division, Heth first led his men in combat early that May at the Battle of Chancellorsville.  On May 2, after Hill fell wounded, Heth assumed leadership of the division and gave a credible performance though his assaults the next day were turned back.  Following Jacksons death on May 10, Lee moved to reorganize his army into three corps.   Giving Hill command of the newly-created Third Corps, he directed that Heth lead a division comprised of two brigades from the Light Division and two recently arrived from the Carolinas.  With this assignment came a promotion to major general on May 24. Marching north in June as part of Lees invasion of Pennsylvania, Heths division was near Cashtown, PA on June 30.  Alerted to the presence of Union cavalry in Gettysburg by Brigadier General James Pettigrew, Hill ordered Heth to conduct a reconnaissance in force towards the town the following day.   Lee approved the action with the restriction that Heth was not to cause a major engagement until the entire army was concentrated at Cashtown.  Approaching the town on July 1, Heth quickly became engaged with Brigadier General John Bufords cavalry division and opened the Battle of Gettysburg.  Initially unable to dislodge, Buford, Heth committed more of his division to the fight. The scale of the battle grew as Major General John Reynolds Union I Corps arrived on the field.   As the day progressed, additional forces arrived spreading the fighting west and north of the town.  Taking heavy losses through the day, Heths division finally succeeded in pushing Union troops back to Seminary Ridge.  With support from Major General W. Dorsey Pender, a final push saw this position captured as well.  During the course of the fighting that afternoon, Heth fell wounded when a bullet struck him in the head.  Saved by a thick new hat that had been stuffed with paper to improve the fit, he was unconscious for the better part of a day and played no further role in the battle. Overland Campaign Resuming command on July 7, Heth directed the fighting at Falling Waters as the Army of Northern Virginia retreated south.  That fall, the division again took heavy losses when it attacked without proper scouting at the Battle of Bristoe Station.  After taking part in the Mine Run Campaign, Heths men went into winter quarters.   In May 1864, Lee moved to block Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grants Overland Campaign.  Engaging the Major General Winfield S. Hancocks Union II Corps at the Battle of the Wilderness, Heth and his division fought hard until relieved by Lieutenant General James Longstreets approaching corps.  Returning to action on May 10 at the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House, Heth attacked and drove back a division led by Brigadier General Francis Barlow. After seeing further action at North Anna in late May, Heth anchored the Confederate left during the victory at Cold Harbor.   Having been checked at Cold Harbor, Grant elected to move south, cross the James River, and march against Petersburg.  Reaching that city, Heth and the rest of Lees army blocked the Union advance.  As a Grant commenced the siege of Petersburg, Heths division took part in many of the actions in the area.  Frequently occupying the extreme right of the Confederate line, he mounted unsuccessful attacks against his classmate Romeyn Ayres division at Globe Tavern in late August.  This was followed assaults at the Second Battle of Reams Station a few days later. Major General Romeyn B. Ayres. Library of Congress Final Actions On October 27-28, Heth, leading Third Corps due to Hill being ill, succeeded in blocking Hancocks men at the Battle of Boydton Plank Road.  Remaining in the siege lines through the winter, his division came under assault on April 2, 1865.  Mounting a general attack against Petersburg, Grant succeeded in breaking through and forced Lee to abandon the city.   Retreating toward Sutherlands Station, the remnants of Heths division were defeated there by Major General Nelson A. Miles later in the day.  Though Lee desired to have him lead Third Corps after Hills death on April 2, Heth remained separated from the bulk of the command during the early parts of the Appomattox Campaign. Withdrawing west, Heth was with Lee and the rest of the Army of Northern Virginia when it surrendered at Appomattox Court House on April 9.   Later Life In the years after the war, Heth worked in mining and later in the insurance industry.  Additionally, he served as a surveyor in the Office of Indian Affairs as well as assisted in the compilation of the US War Departments  Official Records of the War of the Rebellion.  Plagued by kidney disease in his later years, Heth died at Washington, DC on September 27, 1899.  His remains were returned to Virginia and interred in Richmonds Hollywood Cemetery.

Why Are Factory Farmed Animals Given Antibiotics and Hormones

Many people are surprised to hear that farmed animals are routinely given antibiotics and growth hormones. Concerns include animal welfare as well as human health. Factory farms cannot afford to care about animals collectively or individually. The animals are merely a product, and antibiotics and growth hormones such as rGBH are employed to make the operation more profitable. Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone The faster an animal gets to slaughter weight or the more milk an animal produces, the more profitable the operation. Approximately two-thirds of all beef cattle in the US are given growth hormones, and approximately 22 percent of dairy cows are given hormones to increase milk production. The European Union has banned the use of hormones in beef cattle and has conducted a study that showed that hormone residues remain in the meat. Because of health concerns for both people and animals, Japan, Canada, Australia, and the European Union have all banned the use of rBGH, but the hormone is still given to cows in the US. The EU has also banned the import of meat from animals treated with hormones, so the EU imports no beef from the US. Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) causes cows to produce more milk, but its safety for both people and cows is questionable. Additionally, this synthetic hormone increases the incidence of mastitis, an infection of the udder, which causes the secretion of blood and pus into the milk. Health Risks Associated With Antibiotics To combat mastitis and other diseases, cows and other farmed animals are given regular doses of antibiotics as a preventive measure. If a single animal in a herd or a flock is diagnosed with an illness, the entire herd receives the medication, usually mixed in with the animals’ feed or water, because it would be too expensive to diagnose and treat only certain individuals. Another concern is â€Å"subtherapeutic† doses of antibiotics that are given to the animals to cause weight gain. Although it is not clear why small doses of antibiotics cause animals to gain weight and the practice has been banned in the European Union and Canada, it is legal in the United States. All this means that healthy cows are being given antibiotics when they don’t need them, which leads to another health risk. Excessive antibiotics are a concern because they cause the spread of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria. Because antibiotics will kill off most of the bacteria, the drugs leave behind resistant individuals, which then reproduce more rapidly without competition from other bacteria. These bacteria then spread throughout the farm and/or spread to people who come into contact with the animals or the animal products. This is not an idle fear. Antibiotic-resistant strains of salmonella have already been found in animal products in the human food supply. The Solution According to Animal Rights Activists The World Health Organization believes that prescriptions should be required for antibiotics for farmed animals, and several countries have banned the use of rBGH and subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics, but these solutions consider only human health and do not consider animal rights. From an animal rights standpoint, the solution is to stop eating animal products and go vegan.

Living Together Is Not Wrong Free Essays

Chanut Tipphanawadee 155 100 5877 SECTION 5153 Assignment 2 : ————————————————- There is nothing wrong with people living together before they get married. It seems undeniable that living together of couples and marriage of them are totally different of what they did in past. The amount of divorce rate, abortion rate, abandoned children are unstoppable increase. We will write a custom essay sample on Living Together Is Not Wrong or any similar topic only for you Order Now The reason is people in this era have been changed the concept of marriage and living together. Moreover, the rights of human has affected us. Especially, women in this epoch have more powerful than the past. Therefore, I strongly agree with the statement â€Å"There is nothing wrong with people living together before they get married†. There is more than one reason why living together before get marriage is not wrong and should be accepted by our society. Firstly, the couples that living together before they get married is able to look how life would be like with the person who lives with. For the reason is when two peoples whether men or woman living together the conflicts might be occurred because of the different of each other’s behavior such as spending habits, cleaning ,and time. These are important to the couples getting along in the long terms and they can only be learned by proximity when they live together for a period of time. Furthermore, they have to learn to be more responsible and take care of each other like what marriage couples do. Moreover, we are in the new generation where the society is liberal. So, if they can live together before they get married their marriage and couples’ life are more tend to be perfect marriage . That why there is nothing wrong with living together before marriage. How to cite Living Together Is Not Wrong, Papers

Analysis Landmark Case of Asic v Adler and 4 Ors †Free Samples

Question: Discuss about the Landmark Case of Asic v Adler and 4 Ors. Answer: ASIC v Adlerand 4 Ors [2002]NSWSC 171 Asic v Adlerand 4 Ors, is a landmark case and requires analysis as there are several directorial duties that are enshrined under the Corporation Act 2001 which are violated by the parties to the case. There was HIH collapse and which was the outcome of very bad corporate governance. Adler, William and Fodera were the three major parties who were involved in the leading case. (The Law Teacher, 2017) Adler - Controls PEE and is the non-executive director of PEE William - In HIH and HIHC, he was the Managing Director. Fodera Finance Director in HIH. The major actions of Adler that has resulted in the violation of the provisions of the Corporation Act 2001 On June 2000, Pacific Eagle Equity Pty Ltd (PEE - Adler is a person who controls PEE and is the non-executive director of PEE) received a payment of $10 million loan (undocumented and unsecured) from HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd (HIHC). Post loan, PEE becomes the trustee of Australian Equities Unit Trust (AEUT). Adler was a major shareholder in HIH through Adler Corporation Limited. The loan which was granted to PEE was later used to HIHCs subscription for $10 million worth of AEUT units. Also, $4 million worth of HIH shares were purchased by PEE (Adler) from the stock market which are later sold at $2 million loss. The main reason for the purchase of shares to built a market image to the investors of HIH that HIH is doing well. Also, PEE purchased unlisted shares in technology and communication companies from Adler Corporation worth $4 million. AEUT gave $2 million to Adler under the trust. (Plessis, Hargovan, Bagaric, 2010) The above actions of Alder resulted that he was in violation of several duties which he must cater being the officer of HIHC and HIH. Decision of the court It was held by the court that Adler must be banned to act as the director for twenty years. William was banned for ten years. Alder was also imposed with a personal fine of $450,000 and William was imposed with a fine of $250,000 and Fodera with a fine of $5000. Adler Co was imposed with a fine of $450,000. Also, a compensation of $7,986,402 was imposed on Adler, Adler Corporation and Williams to pay to HIHC. (Baxt, 2005) Reasons for the decision The court held that all the transactions had taken place without any approval from the board of directors or at the approval of the shareholders of PEE. The HIH investment committee was also not aware of the same nor was the board acquainted with the said facts. The loan which is provided by HIHC to PEE was also without any proper documentation work nor was the loan secured. The main reason for making the loan was a secret affair so that no other directors of HIH were get knowledge of the same and Adler make personal interest from the said transactions. Director of company Adler was the director The Corporation Act 2001, has defines the term director. A director is a person who is placed at the directorial position. Thus, whatsoever name is provided to a person, if he is carrying out all the directorial functions then he are capable to be define as a company director. Thus, an alternate director, de facto director and shadow directors are also considered as the director under section 9 of the Act (Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL[2012]). Further, the officers who are the executives of the company at senior positions are also comes within the preview of section 9 of the Act. Every company director must cater his duties adequately so that the interest of the shareholders can be protected. (Davis, 2016) Now, Adler was considered to be director of HIH as per section 9 of the Act. He was also the officer of the wholly-owned HIH subsidiary and there comes within the preview of section 9 of the Act. Even though he is not formally appointed at the position of the director, still, he was at a senior executive post and thus is considered as the director under section 9 of the Act. He was pursuing the role of the director in the subsidiary holding company and he is also the member of HIH investment committee, thus, he has full involvement in the decisions making process of the company and its business which may affect the business wholly or substantially. Now, there are several duties that are violated by Adler. The same are submitted herein below: The major duties that are violated by Alder Alder was in violation of some of the important duties established under the Corporation Act 2001. The same are: Section 180 of the Act The duty deals with the acts of care and diligence. As per section 180, sub section 1, every officer and the director must perform their power and comply with the duties with due care and diligence. The care and diligence must be of standard form and must be equal to what a normal prudent man will deal in the similar situations. The executive directors are the employee of the company which caters their duties on the full time basis. They carry out the day to day management of the company and have high knowledge and special responsibilities. Whereas, the non executive company directors are engaged in part time works and but have regular involvement in the affairs of the company. (Campbell, 2007) Now, this duty of care and diligence was not performed by Adler Adequately. In HIH and HIHC, William was the Managing Director. He was in total violation of section 180 (1) of the Act. This is because no adequate safeguards were provided to HIHC prior sanctioning any loan to PEE. Likewise, Fodera was the Finance Director in HIH. He also violated section 180 (1) as the proposal to sanction $10 million loan to PEE was not discussed with the board of HIH or its investment committee. The duty of care and diligence that was desired from both William and Fodera were not catered by them. They were the executive company directors and the duty must be performed by them adequately. Further, Adler, William and Flora cannot take the defense enshrined under section 180 (1) of the Act which deals with Business judgment Rule (section 180 (2)). As per the rule, if any company officer and director has acted with utmost good faith and for proper purpose and has no material personnel interest in the transaction, then, the duty of care and diligence is not considered to be violated. Now, Adler cannot take the defense) because he is not able to satisfy the requirements of section 180 (2) (b), that is, there is presence of conflict of interest when he takes the decisions to invest $10 million payment from HIHC in PEE. Also, William was not able to provide adequate safeguard to avoid the breach. Also, he was one of the holding major shares in HIH and thus there is material personnel interest when the transaction took place. No evidence was laid down by him which depicts that he was acting in good faith and for proper purpose. Fodera also cannot take the defense because he did not refer the transaction which is to be dealt with PEE to the boards of HIH, nor was the same referred to the investment committee. Section 181 of the Act The duty to act in good faith, in the best interest of the company and for proper purpose. As per section 181 (1) of the act can be considered to be violated even when the director believes that he acting as per the provisions but in reality the same was not the case. The transactions that took place amid HIH, HIHC and PEE were mainly motivated to bring personal interest to Adler. Adler was in violation of section 181 as he had not acted in good faith and in the best interest of the company as the powers and duties that are discharged by him were not Adequate. (Cassidy, 2006) Section 182 of the Act Duty not to misuse the position. No company officer or director must use his position in such a manner so that it results in bringing undue advantage to them and undue loss to the company. In the leading case it was submitted that Adler was in clear violation of section 182 of the Act. He arranged a loan of $10 million which is to be provided to PEE by HIHC. The money was then to be used purchase the shares in HIH on the stock market. The main reason for indulging in such an act is so that the share price of HIH increases and then Adler Corporation will sell the shares of HIH before PEE could sell off their shares in HIH, thereby, making huge profits to Adler Corporation in which Adler has substantial interest. The total act has resulted in causing loss to PEE when it sell of their shares of HIH. The court held that Adler has breached section 182 of the Act by misusing the position (the director of HIH, director of PEE and being the officer of HIHC). His actions have brought substantial gain to Adler Corporation. Further, since Adler was the director in PEE, he mis-utilized his position as he acquired unlisted capitals at cost price from Adler Corporation but he has not sought any separate valuation for the same. If these transactions are considered to be successful then the Adler Corporation and Adler were able to keep out from theses business unviable operations. The court also held that William was also in violation of section 182 of the Corporation Act 2001. He was the director in HIHC and HIH and thus has misused his position to bring advantage to Adler Corporation. He has permitted the loan of $10 million without seeking proper authorization. No approval was sought from the investment committee of HIH prior granting the loan to PEE and which is very essential as per the investment guidelines of HIH. Section 183 of the Act Duty not to misuse the information of the company. Any person, whether director or officer or any employee, of acquired information from the company then no such information should be used which brings gain to themselves or anyone else and loss to the company. The court applied ASIC v Vizard, and it was held by the court that Vizard was the non-executive director of Telstra and he uses the inside information to bring advantage to CTI, Brigham and himself and thus is in violation of section 183 of the Act. Alder is fully aware that the HIH and HIHC were facing problems with cash flows and there is so much risk that ultimately they will fall down. Knowing the fact, Adler still has not revealed his self interest in the transactions to the board of HIH except to Fodera and William. Section 206 A of the Act Duty towards financial assistance. Nno company must financially assist any other person so as to acquire/obtain shares in the same company or in its holding company. However, there are few exceptions, such as, if such assistance is not prejudice to the company or will hamper the company ability to pay its creditors or shareholders (260 A(1)(a)), or if the shareholders approve of the assistance (260B) or if the assistance is exempted or relieved (260C). Now, Adler was controlling PEE. However, he was found to be in contravention of section 206A of the Corporation Act 2001. Adler with the help of HIHC has provided financial assistance to PEE (HIHC was the subsidiary of HIH, a company which is in control of Adler). Thus, Adler has indirectly provided loan from his own company to his own company. The loan which was provided by Adler to PEE was used to purchase shares of HIH on the stock market. These actions of Adler has provided an impression that Alder is helping the decreasing process of HIH by purchasing the shares personally. The court submitted that Adler has no intention to earn gain by reselling the shares of HIH. The main intention was to enhance the share prices of HIH so as to provide advantage to Alder Corporation Limited. This is because when PEE sell off its HIH shares then the same was carried out only when Adler Corporation intends to sell off its HIH shares which has resulted in loss for PEEs investment.So, there is a clear violation of section 260A. Concluding remarks and analysis The most important point that is learned from the given case is that the directors and the companies must make sure that it is necessary that there must be proper corporate governance to protect a company from any kind of improper actions which can be taken by the directors for their own benefits. There is a need to have an adequate check and balances to make sure that the system is not bypassed. References Books/Articles/Journals Baxt, R (2005) Duties and Responsibilities of Directors and Officers, AICD. Cassidy, J (2006) Concise Corporations Law, Federation Press. Campbell, C (2007) International Liability of Corporate Directors [2007] I, Lulu.com. Plessis, J, Hargovan, A and Bagaric, (2010) Principles of Contemporary Corporate Governance, Cambridge University Press. Case laws Asic v Adlerand 4 Ors [2002]NSWSC 171. ASIC v Vizard[2005] Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL[2012] FCAFC 6 Online Material Davis, S (2016) Who is liable for company decisions?(online).Available at: file:///C:/Users/mypc/Downloads/Who+is+Liable+for+Company+Decisions+-+SED+-+April+2016.pdf. (Accessed on 17th May, 2017). The Law Teacher (2017) Case summary ASIC v Adler (online). Available at: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/company-law/case-summary-asic-v-adler-law-essays.php. (Accessed on 17th May, 2017).