Battle of Churubusco - Mexican-American War - Winfield Scott

Battle of Churubusco - Mexican-American War - Winfield Scott Battle of Churubusco - Conflict Date: The Battle of Churubusco was fought August 20, 1847, during the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). Armies Commanders United States Major General Winfield ScottMajor General William J. Worth8,497 Mexico General Manuel RinconGeneral Pedro Anaya3,800 Battle of Churubusco - Background: With the beginning of the Mexican-American War in May 1946, Brigadier General Zachary Taylor won quick victories in Texas at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma. Pausing to reinforce, he later invaded northern Mexico and captured the city of Monterrey. Though pleased with Taylors success, President James K. Polk was increasingly concerned about the generals political aspirations. As a result of this, and reports that an advance on Mexico City from Monterrey would be difficult, he began stripping Taylors army of men to form a new command for Major General Winfield Scott. This new army was tasked with capturing the port of Veracruz before moving inland against the Mexican capital. Polks approach nearly brought disaster when a badly outnumbered Taylor was attacked at Buena Vista in February 1847. In desperate fighting, he was able to hold off the Mexicans. Landing at Veracruz in March 1847, Scott captured the city after a twenty-day siege. Concerned about yellow fever along the coast, he quickly began marching inland and was soon confronted by a Mexican army led by General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. Attacking the Mexicans at Cerro Gordo on April 18, he routed the enemy before advancing to capture Puebla. Resuming the campaign in early August, Scott elected to approach Mexico City from the south rather than force the enemy defenses at El Peà ±Ãƒ ³n. Rounding Lakes Chalco and Xochimilco his men arrived at San Augustin on August 18. Having anticipated an American advance from the east, Santa Anna began redeploying his army to the south and assumed a line along the Churubusco River (Map). Battle of Churubusco - Situation Before Contreras: To defend the southern approaches to the city, Santa Anna deployed troops under General Francisco Perez at Coyoacan with forces led by General Nicholas Bravo to the east at Churubusco. In the west, the Mexican right was held General Gabriel Valencias Army of the North at San Angel. Having established his new position, Santa Anna was separated from the Americans by a vast lava field known as the Pedregal. On August 18 Scott directed Major General William J. Worth to take his division along the direct road to Mexico City. Marching along the east edge of the Pedregal, the division and accompanying dragoons came under heavy fire at San Antonio, just south of Churubusco. Unable to flank the enemy due to the Pedregal to the west and water to the east, Worth elected to halt. In the west, Valencia, a political rival of Santa Anna, elected to advance his men five miles south to a position near the villages of Contreras and Padierna. Seeking to break the deadlock, Scott sent one of his engineers, Major Robert E. Lee, to find a path through the Pedregal to the west. Successful, Lee began leading American troops from Major Generals David Twiggs and Gideon Pillows divisions across the rough terrain on August 19. In the course of this movement, an artillery duel commenced with Valencia. As this continued, American troops moved unnoticed to the north and west and took positions around San Geronimo before nightfall. Battle of Churubusco - The Mexican Withdrawal: Attacking around dawn, American forces shattered Valencias command at the Battle of Contreras. Realizing that the triumph had unhinged the Mexican defenses in the area, Scott issued a series of orders following Valencias defeat. Among these were orders which countermanded earlier directives for Worths and Major General John Quitmans divisions to move west. Instead, these were ordered north towards San Antonio. Sending troops west into the Pedregal, Worth quickly outflanked the Mexican position and sent them reeling north. With his position south of the Churubusco River collapsing, Santa Anna made the decision to begin pulling back towards Mexico City. To do so, it was critical that his forces hold the bridge at Churubusco. Command of the Mexican forces at Churubusco fell to General Manuel Rincon who directed his troops to occupy fortifications near the bridge as well as the San Mateo Convent to the southwest. Among the defenders were members of the San Patricio Battalion which consisted of Irish deserters from the American army. With the two wings of his army converging on Churubusco, Scott immediately ordered Worth and Pillow to attack the bridge while Twiggs division assaulted the convent. In an uncharacteristic move, Scott had not scouted either of these positions and was unaware of their strength. While these attacks moved forward, the brigades of Brigadier Generals James Shields and Franklin Pierce were to move north over the bridge at Coyoacan before turning east for Portales. Had Scott reconnoitered Churubusco, he most likely would have sent the bulk of his men along Shields route. Battle of Churubusco - A Bloody Victory: Moving forward, the initial assaults against the bridge failed as Mexican forces held. They were aided by the timely arrival of militia reinforcements. Renewing the assault, the brigades of Brigadier Generals Newman S. Clarke and George Cadwalader finally carried the position after a determined attack. To the north, Shields successfully crossed the river before meeting a superior Mexican force at Portales. Under pressure, he was reinforced by the Mounted Rifles and a company of dragoons which were stripped from Twiggs division. With the bridge taken, American forces were able to reduce the convent. Charging forward, Captain Edmund B. Alexander led the 3rd Infantry in storming its walls. The convent quickly fell and many of the surviving San Patricios were captured. At Portales, Shields began to gain the upper hand and the enemy began to retreat as Worths division was seen advancing from bridge to the south. Battle of Churubusco - Aftermath: Uniting, the Americans mounted an ineffective pursuit of the Mexicans as they fled towards Mexico city. Their efforts were hampered by the narrow causeways which traversed swampy terrain. The fighting at Churubusco cost Scott 139 killed, 865 wounded, and 40 missing. Mexican losses numbered 263 killed, 460 wounded, 1,261 captured, and 20 missing. A disastrous day for Santa Anna, August 20 saw his forces defeated at Contreras and Churubusco and his entire defensive line south of the city shattered. In an effort to buy time to reorganize, Santa Anna requested short truce which Scott granted. It was Scotts hope that peace could be negotiated without his army having to storm the city. This truce quickly failed and Scott resumed operations in early September. These saw him win a costly victory at Molino del Rey before successfully taking Mexico City on September 13 after the Battle of Chapultepec. Selected Sources PBS: Battle of ChurubuscoSon of the South: Battle of Churubusco Aztec Club: Battle of Churubusco - Map

Popular Chainsaw Brands You Can Buy on Amazon

Popular Chainsaw Brands You Can Buy on Amazon A survey was conducted several years ago to determine the popularity of chainsaw brands used by woodsmen users in the United States. Listed in the survey included both dealer-supported saws and big box saws sold at local hardware chains. The list also included boxed products to include Poulan, Craftsman, Remington, Hitachi as well as dealer-sold saws including Husqvarna, Stihl, Jonsered, and Echo. Husqvarna Barely Beats  Stihl One interesting observation in the survey was that dealer-serviced saws topped the popularity list. With over 3,100 votes cast, Husqvarna was narrowly selected over Stihl as the chainsaw of choice voted on by Forestry readers. Here are the percentages of preference and ranked by saw brand: Husqvarna - 41%Stihl - 40%Jonsered -  7%Echo - 4%All others - 8% Voting for a favorite saw was extremely close between the first and second place brands. Husqvarna and Stihl are by far the most popular saws in America according to this survey. Although this was not a scientific survey, these saw brands were acclaimed to be the preferred saws of the survey readership; most, if not all these models, have high ratings. It should be noted that industry competition and availability of dealers change as do these rankings locally. It has become obvious over the years that a local branded service center increases sales. Buying available service with a warranty guarantee is as, if not more important than the price paid for the chainsaw. A power tool will malfunction over time and you will need service and parts over the life of the saw, as noted by power equipment dealer Tom Bernosky in a saw industry trade magazine. â€Å"Always remember when buying any machine, buy from somebody who can service. You will only hurt yourself and your business by buying something at a mart-type store. I’m not saying you can’t buy mail order, just make sure they do the service work. If they don’t, your warranty isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.† Tom Bernosky Latest Chainsaw Medium Power Picks For non-professional but regular chainsaw users, several models are recommended. Power models are usually heavier, have more cubic centimeters of displacement (- 40 ccs) and tend to come standard with 16 bars. These saws are primarily picked by resource managers, forest and landscape owners, and businesses who use saws regularly but are not professional timber fellers. They will cost slightly more than smaller saws and are typically on sale from between $250 and $350 each. See the top most voted for chainsaws below. Voted #1:  Husqvarna Saws Swedish company Husqvarna builds chainsaws for both the professional and casual user and is available for purchase on Amazon. A Husky saw has excellent power-to-weight ratios but does not compromise on a slim saw body design and on lightness. Husqvarna saws are built with LowVib, Air Injection, and a Smart Start function that makes them very easy to start. All saws have mandatory safety features and offer  a variety of chainsaw for every requirement. The recommended top bargain power model  is the Husqvarna 440E Chainsaw. Voted #2:  Stihl Saw Germanys Stihl has been in the chainsaw business for over 70 years but only sells through exclusive dealerships. They have developed a slim saw form and continually develop  significant advances in saw technology. The Stihl saw has an anti-vibe technology for fatigue free operation and they claim to be leading manufacturer of saws worldwide. All saws have mandatory safety features and offer  a variety of chainsaw for every requirement. The recommended top  bargain power model  (Consumer Reports Listing)  is the  Stihl MS 180C Chainsaw. Voted #3:  Jonsered Saws Jonsered’s from Gothenburg, Sweden and has been producing wood processing machinery since the 1880’s. Dealerships have not been fully developed in all areas of North America but are great saws  if backed up by a local dealer and are sold online. The Jonsered actually produced the prototype for today’s modern one-man chainsaw. The recommended top  bargain power model  is the  Jonsered CS2238 Chainsaw and can be purchased on Amazon. Voted #4:  Echo Saws Echo is Japans leading manufacturer of chainsaws and sells to professionals and casual private users alike. They are currently challenging the bigger companies from Germany and Scandinavia. Echo has earned a following among power saw users for giving outstanding performance and dependability. The recommended​​  power model  is the Echo Chainsaw CS 310.

Final questions Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Final questions - Essay Example This space was small and at the rear of the skull in quadrapedal animals. It moved a little forward and grew to about 6 times the earlier one for knuckle walkers, like gorillas. For bipedal animals it moved even further forward and nearly doubles in size. This makes sense, as the place where the spinal column enters the skull would govern the angle at which the head is carried (Howells 77-205). Lucy from Oldivai Gorge in South Africa is the most complete skeleton of this genus, which walked upright and may have used very simple tools. It probably lived in trees, but hunted or scavenged on the ground, as the curvature of fingers and toes indicates it could climb trees. The pelvis in the female is the same as modern man. The long forehead slopes at about 45 degrees from the bony ridge over the eyes, and there is no real chin. Two sets of footprints preserved by volcanic action and found by Mary Leakey show human toes, and they prove that Australopithecus Afarensis walked on two feet ha bitually, though the placement of feet show a more splayed gait and suggests that this ape was not quite upright ("Early Human Evolution: Early Transitional Humans."). One of the difficulties with the fossil records is that there is no way of knowing how many species exhibiting changes came between one recovered fossil and the next. This is why there is disagreement about exactly where the branches might be. Without DNA evidence it is not possible to know for sure which hominid is the ancestor of which others. Even with DNA evidence it would not be certain, as it would requires some from all the fossils in the line. Australopithecus Africanus followed next. However, it is not certain where homo branched off. It could have been from Aferensis, Africanus, Robustus or even a separate Paranthropus Robustus. All of these were inhabiting the same area as contemporaries. There might even have been interbreeding, which would indicate that the breeds were not really separate. The Robustus de finitely had larger bones and brain cavity, and it seems to have gone extinct. That leaves either Afarensis or Africanus as being separate lines or branching to Australopithecus Bahrelghazali which then branched to Homo. Only lower jaw bones have been found thus far, but the dentition puts this species closer to Homo than the others. There may have been other branches of Australopithecus, but there is not enough fossil evidence that they were around very long before going extinct. Cross breeding could also have eliminated some differences ("Hominidae_filogenia.png (PNG Image, 1025 ? 979 pixels)."). So me theorists eliminate all of these australopithecines from the homo line of ancestry, believing that homo lines branched off independently from either Ardipithecus Ramidus or A. Garhi. However, one might question this based upon the lack of fossils and the latest find in Georgia on the Black Sea of five Homo Habilis types with a great deal of variation among them. It is possible they are all one species with variation, just as we have today. Speciation generally includes an inability to procreate successfully between species. A recent discovery of what seems to be a new species of Australopithecus, A. Garhi, in Ethiopia is a candidate for early human. This illustration shows the pitifully few pieces that have been found, and the Georgian discovery makes it worth further investigation before ascribing