Controversial Decision Research Articles

Charismatic Nonverbal Displays by Leaders Signal Receptivity and Formidability, and Tap Approach and Avoidance Motivational Systems.

Status cues and signals act as guidance systems by regulating social approach and avoidance. Applied to leadership, we hypothesized that nonverbal displays conveying the dual-status messages of receptivity and formidability and the approach/avoidance motives they activate set conditions for charismatic, leader–follower relationships. We investigated perceptions of charisma, the nonverbal signals associated with them, the motives they energize, and the relationships they support across levels of analysis. At the social–perceptual level (studies 1a–d), eligible voters rated political leaders’ traits after viewing silent, 30-s videos of speeches presented online. As predicted, perceptions of politicians’ receptivity (warmth and attractiveness) and formidability (competence and power) were independently associated with perceptions of their charisma; perceptions of trustworthiness and authenticity showed weaker or negligible associations. Results were similar when the stimuli were female, Jamaican educational leaders. Leaders’ nonverbal behavior was linked to perceptions of their receptivity, formidability, and charisma in study 2. At the brain systems level, studies 3a and 3b tested predictions that charismatic nonverbal performances stimulate equivalent degrees of approach and avoidance motivation in observers. Brain recordings via electroencephalography (EEG) were made while undergraduates viewed leaders rated high or low in charisma. Discrepancies in alpha activity in the left and the right frontal hemispheres (associated with approach and avoidance, respectively) were relatively diminished when participants viewed highly charismatic political leaders, indicating that approach and avoidance motives are energized in response to charismatic performances. The EEG patterns for Jamaican leaders were similar but not significant. At the group level of analysis, study 4 sought evidence that charismatic leaders create uniquely influential relationships with followers. Video recordings of student leaders interacting with pairs of unfamiliar students during a group decision-making task were assessed for leader receptivity, formidability, and charisma by independent sets of undergraduate judges. Perceptions of student leaders’ receptivity and formidability predicted their charisma, and charismatic leaders were most influential in bringing followers to privately accept a controversial group decision. Across studies, evidence generally supported hypotheses generated from status cues theory: charismatic leadership builds upon the nonverbal projection of dual-status messages and the approach/avoidance motives they engender, setting conditions for a uniquely powerful brand of influence.

Q & A with Wayne Journell on “Controversial Decisions Within Teaching Controversial Issues”

Q & A with Wayne Journell on “Controversial Decisions Within Teaching Controversial Issues”

Controversial Decisions Within Teaching Controversial Issues

none

Addressing childhood obesity - Are we doing enough?

Abstract Background The prevalence of childhood overweight and obesity is increasing worldwide, with Malta having one of the highest rates among European countries. Childhood obesity is likely to track into adulthood, and can have multiple physical and psychological health outcomes. It also causes a substantial economic burden on society. A cross-sectional study that aimed to identify barriers to maintaining a healthy weight among children attending primary school, and to assess the level of support for a range of policies aimed at addressing childhood obesity as expressed by their parents/guardians, was conducted in Malta. Methods Data were collected using a paper-based questionnaire that was distributed to a stratified random sample of parents whose children attended free State schools, subsidised Church schools and fee-paying Independent primary schools in Malta and Gozo in 2018. Data were analysed using SPSSv25. Results Responses from 1169 parents were received. There was a dissonance between the most common barriers identified, that were primarily related to the food environment, and the policies that received the most support. Providing more spaces for safe physical activity was the most supported policy (94% in favour). Participants were least supportive of taxation policies, a phenomenon also observed in other countries. The level of support for policies varied significantly by various demographic and socioeconomic factors. Conclusions Recommendations were developed to inform future policies and strategies to address obesity. Policymakers need to take bold, possibly controversial decisions to mitigate against the barriers faced by the population in accessing healthy food and being physically active. Given the globalised nature of media advertising and the food system, a joint international effort is necessary to address this epidemic, such as stricter audio-visual media advertising regulations, food reformulation and mandatory standardised food labels. Key messages The majority of participants supported most of the proposed policies to address obesity. Taxation policies received the least support. Most policies supported are trans-sectoral, therefore a health-in-all policies approach and international collaboration are necessary.

Discursive (De)legitimization of the Iran Nuclear Deal in Donald Trump’s Tweets

On May 8, 2018, President Trump withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Since the JCPOA is endorsed by a United Nations Security Council Resolution and supported by the international community, Trump has had to justify this controversial decision. Based on data extracted from Trump’s Twitter account and taking advantage of Theo van Leeuwen’s (2008) discursive construction of the legitimation model, this article addresses the following question: How has Donald Trump attempted to delegitimize the JCPOA? Findings in this article show that Trump used the strategies of moral evaluation and rationalization in an attempt to delegitimize the JCPOA.

A global pandemic is not a good time to introduce ‘opt-out’ for organ donation

Following several international examples, England introduced a system of deemed consent for organ donation in May 2020. This had been planned for over a year. However, the unprecedented circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic raise issues that make the timing of this change unfortunate. The planned public awareness campaign has thus far been overshadowed by media coverage of the pandemic, and will likely continue to be, creating a situation in which a significant portion of the population may be unaware of having become potential organ donors. Further, the immediate impact of the new policy is likely to be significantly weakened by the suspension of the majority of organ donation and transplant activity. In this article, we first outline the details of the new model introduced in England, before considering the impact of the pandemic on transplantation services. We put forward three ethical reasons why, given the unprecedented circumstances, the change should have been postponed. We argue that (1) COVID-19 dominating headlines will prevent widespread awareness of the change, thereby undermining the autonomy of those who do not wish to be donors; (2) a lack of transplant activity during the pandemic will make the impact of the change difficult to measure; and (3) trust in the new system may be damaged given controversial decisions regarding Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation orders and the allocation of scarce intensive care resources. These reasons combined make for a shaky start at best and present a risk of the new system failing to achieve its desired and essential effect of increasing the number of voluntary organ donors.

Direct Democracy Denied: The Right to Initiative in a Pandemic

Putting aside the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, the case over extending the date for receipt of absentee ballots in the April 2020 Wisconsin primary, courts so far have done a fairly good job protecting voting rights during the COVID-19 pandemic. From easing candidate and party signature requirements for ballot access, to temporarily eliminating witness or notarization requirements for casting an absentee ballot, to interpreting the excuse provisions in for-cause absentee ballot laws to cover voters without coronavirus immunity who fear voting in person, courts have recognized that election laws that ordinarily do not burden voters can become burdensome in a pandemic. Courts have interpreted such laws to avoid disenfranchisement, and sometimes temporarily suspended or altered them. That welcome thumb on the scale favoring voters, however, has not extended uniformly to claims for the easing of signature gathering rules by ballot measure proponents. In four cases I examine, courts have rejected the demands of initiative proponents to ease requirements to qualify a measure for the ballot, such as allowing electronic instead of “wet” (in person) signatures, and easing witness requirements, total number of signatures required, or geographic requirements for signature collection. In just one case, Thompson v. DeWine, a federal district court ordered Ohio to alter its procedures for qualifying proposed measures for the ballot, including allowing the acceptance of electronic signatures. The decision, however, was put on hold by the Sixth Circuit in a stay order that was very dismissive of the rights of direct democracy and that portends bad things to come. In this short analysis, I argue that some of the reasons courts and states have offered against easing ballot measure qualification requirements during a pandemic are weak, and that the district court in Thompson was right to see that normal ballot qualification rules can impose a severe First Amendment burden on direct democracy proponents under pandemic conditions. The problem, as illustrated by the Thompson case, is fashioning appropriate relief consistent with principles of federalism and separation of powers. It is difficult to craft a remedy would put the plaintiffs in the position they would have been in had there been no pandemic and that does not usurp the state’s general role in enforcing its election rules or undermine sound principles of election administration and fairness.

Rembrandt print connoisseurship,

Sir Francis Seymour Haden was a physician, etcher, and a collector and connoisseur of Rembrandt etchings. He was also one of the leading British proponents of the etching revival of the nineteenth century. His own aesthetic preferences for etching were consonant with what he understood to be the best Rembrandt etchings, with an emphasis on seeming spontaneity, quick execution, and the promotion of richly individuated impressions through drypoint and plate tone. In an 1877 exhibition, and in writings into the 1890s, he applied this standard to the study of the etchings then attributed to Rembrandt, and made controversial decisions about attributions, challenging some long-held beliefs of Rembrandt print connoisseurs. While Haden’s insistence on studying the etchings in a chronological sequence would prove influential, his status as an amateur rather than an academic or museum professional, and his intemperate language directed towards other scholars, undermined the acceptance of his ideas.

Configuring the PrEP user: framing pre-exposure prophylaxis in UK newsprint 2012–2016

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been hailed as a revolutionary intervention for HIV prevention. PrEP’s controversial status in the UK has generated significant media coverage. It is important to understand what role the media plays in framing PrEP policy issues. We undertook a qualitative analysis of UK newsprint articles between 2012 and 2016 to examine how PrEP was framed as a public health intervention up until a controversial policy decision not to provide PrEP in England. We identified how scientific evidence was deployed to shape two narratives: ir/responsible citizens focused on imagined PrEP users and their capacity to use PrEP effectively; and the public health imperative, which described the need for PrEP. Our analysis demonstrates the particular ways in which scientific evidence contributed to the certainty of PrEP as an effective intervention within UK newsprint. Scientific evidence also played a key role in framing PrEP as an intervention specifically for cis-gendered gay and bisexual men, playing into wider debates about who is a deserving patient and the appropriate use of public resources. Practitioners in the UK and elsewhere should be aware of these constructions of the PrEP user to ensure equitable access to PrEP beyond gay and bisexual men.

The Role of Palliative Care Consultation in Withdrawal of Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support for Cardiogenic Shock

To evaluate the clinical characteristics of patients withdrawn from veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support (VA-ECMO), as well as the role of palliative care (PC) consultation in the decision to withdraw VA-ECMO. We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of adult patients with cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO at our institution between March 1, 2007 and May 31, 2019 to determine those who died after VA-ECMO was withdrawn. Patients were excluded if they survived less than 2 hours on VA-ECMO, died more than 72 hours after withdrawal, or were diagnosed with brain death prior to withdrawal. Of 643 Patients who received VA-ECMO, 127 patients (19.8%) were included. The etiology for VA-ECMO initiation included acute decompensated heart failure (11.8%), acute myocardial infarction (22.0%), extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (4.7%), post-cardiotomy shock (34.6%), and others (26.8%). Mean time on VA-ECMO was 6.1 days, and most patients had other forms of life support, including renal replacement therapy (64.6%), mechanical ventilation (97.6%), intra-aortic balloon pump or Impella (47.2%), and AICD or pacemaker (16.5%). After 2013, 43 patients (44.8%) had a PC consult with a mean of 6.4 days from initial consultation to withdrawal. Only 1 patient had capacity to request withdrawal, and 1 patient had no surrogate requiring a legal guardian to be designated. At the time of withdrawal, 31 (24.4%) had clinical or radiologic evidence of anoxic brain injury, and this was associated with number of life support measures, length of time on VA-ECMO, and number of PC visits (Wilks lambda 0.5549, DF 4,71, p = 0.006). The length of time on VA-ECMO correlated with increased number of PC visits (r=0.525, p=0.001). Presence of anoxic brain injury was associated with decreased number of PC visits (t=3.02, p=0.003). Most patients withdrawn from VA-ECMO did not have capacity to determine their end of life care. Number of PC visits may be a surrogate marker of the complexity of the decision to withdraw. The longer the time on VA-ECMO, the greater the number of PC visits patients received. Further, the presence of anoxic brain injury was associated with fewer PC visits, which may indicate a less controversial decision to withdraw in patients with poor neurological prognosis.

The High Court and Constitutional Identity – the 2019/2020 term

What do we learn about Australian Constitutional Identity from the Australian High Court? This paper teases out three elements of Australian constitutional law seen in the decisions of 2019 that tell us something about who we are, how we distinguish the role of our High Court from what other institutions of power do within our system and what we value under the Constitution. Specifically, who are ‘the people’ under the Constitution and how does the Court understand that concept of ‘the people’; how does the Court explain its distinct role under the Constitution and the distinction between the courts and the political branches of government and what values affect the reasoning of the Court? Finally, this paper focuses on the controversial decision of Love decided in February 2020 to explain the deep divides between the majority and dissenting reasons, which map onto the issues found in the 2019 cases and which indicate constitutional values that are as yet unsettled.

PUBLIC OWNERSHIP BY COOPERATIVES OF WORK: A CRITICAL LOOK AT THE CONTROVERSY VISION OF THE BRAZILIAN 5TH REGION REGIONAL COURT OF WORK

This article aims to perform a critical analysis of four controversial decisions issued by the Brazilian Regional Court of the 5th Region, which deal with public outsourcing by cooperatives, pointing out the legality and the reasons for its use, also dealing with myths and truths, doctrine, overviews and paradoxical understandings.
 The combined analysis of these elements necessarily goes through fraud in the labor relations, without evading the public interest that surrounds the matter, confronting them with the legislation, jurisprudence and precedents, thus making it possible to obtain a critical look at the topic.

The Foreign Policy of Lyndon B. Johnson: The United States and the World, 1963–1969. by Jonathan Colman, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012, paper. 231 pp.

<i>The Foreign Policy of Lyndon B. Johnson: The United States and the World, 1963–1969</i>. by Jonathan Colman, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012, paper. 231 pp.

Radiological predictors of hemorrhagic transformation after acute ischemic stroke: An evidence-based analysis.

Hemorrhagic transformation (HT) is one of the most common adverse events related to acute ischemic stroke (AIS) that affects the treatment plan and clinical outcome. Identification of a sensitive radiological marker may influence the controversial thrombolytic decision in the setting of AIS and may at a minimum indicate more intensive monitoring or further prophylactic interventions. In this article we summarize possible radiological biomarkers and the role of different radiological modalities including computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging, angiography, and ultrasound in predicting HT. Different radiological indices of early ischemic changes, large ischemic lesion volume, severe blood flow restriction, blood-brain barrier disruption, poor collaterals and high blood flow velocities have been reported to be associated with higher risk of HT. The current levels of evidence of the available studies highlight the role of the different CT perfusion parameters in predicting HT. Further large standardized studies are recommended to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the different radiological markers combined and delineate the most reliable predictor.

Inventor's Moral Right and the Morality of Patents

Do inventors have moral rights and does morality matter in patent law? Whilst morality provides a normative justification for property as a right having an erga omnes effect, moral rights of the property owner does not exist a priori. In contrast as property right imposes a duty of abstention, morality may justify such duty. As a specie of property right, intellectual property necessarily includes a dimension of morality implied as restriction. Moreover, as intellectual property includes inalienable, personal mental inputs of the creator and inventors into the abstract objects, moral interests of the creators and inventor also justifies the exclusive right. Despite the foundational significance, the moral interests of an inventor based on patent law is scarcely debated. In contrast to perennial discussion on the morality’s restriction of the patent grants and exercise of patent rights, the perception of patent as a moral right is not widely accepted, nor the expression, ‘moral right’ is found in positive patent law. The absence of academic discussion of moral right for inventors begs the question if morality means and should mean different value in patents than copyright, and if indeed there is no ‘moral interests’ that are protected or should be protected for inventors. The chapter aims to answer this by first conceptualizing morality generally in patent law, and then identify areas where it may be expressed as a right in the European Patent Convention (EPC). Finally, the paper explores one concrete aspect in the positive patent law where the moral interest of an inventor is indeed protected. Using the controversial decision on Broad Institute’s European patent application based on gene-editing invention, CRIPSR, as a case study, this paper illustrates how moral right of an inventor exists and how it may be used as a positive right, which may control the use of the invention, although limited in its scope. As the current right is limited in scope, a cautious normative claim calling for extending a moral right based defence to the inventor is made, as it would imbue fairness into the discussion patent law and ameliorate individual inventor’s position in an increasingly corporate owner-centric patent system.

The First Soldier: Hitler as Military Leader by Stephen G. Fritz

Reviewed by: The First Soldier: Hitler as Military Leader by Stephen G. Fritz Michael Geheran The First Soldier: Hitler as Military Leader. By Stephen G. Fritz. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018. Pp. viii + 459. Cloth $30.00. ISBN 978-0300205985. There are entire libraries devoted to Hitler and World War II, and historians are right to ask why we need yet another book. Stephen Fritz, a leading scholar in the military history of the Third Reich, does not rely on new evidence or new approaches to answer old questions, rather he simply aims to dispel the persisting myth that Hitler's radicalism and erratic decision-making undermined the operational brilliance of his generals. In this engaging scholarly corrective to our understanding of Hitler's military leadership, Fritz synthesizes the voluminous scholarship in English- and German-language secondary sources and constructs a nuanced accounting of Hitler's role as Feldherr. After 1945, German generals engaged in a deliberate effort to deflect blame for Germany's disastrous defeat—the second in a generation—on Hitler, with memoirs by Manstein, Guderian, and others claiming they could have won the war on their own terms had not the "Bohemian Corporal" interfered at every critical turn. This well-worn narrative, of course, conveniently omits the fact that the German officer corps enthusiastically welcomed Hitler's rise to power, condoned and fueled a genocidal war, and slavishly obeyed his orders to the end. First Soldier zeroes in on these conflicts and suggests Hitler's military leadership was much less "irrational" and inept than the conventional portrait suggests, especially in the first two years of the conflict. If we believe Fritz, Hitler clearly understood—better than his generals—"the nature of his war, what it meant to accomplish, and by what means" (xiv). He had many strengths as a military leader: his openness to new ideas and operational daring, especially relating to mechanized warfare, made possible the German victory over France in 1940, when he rejected the General Staff's watered-down version of the Schlieffen Plan in favor of General Erich von Manstein's bold offensive through the Ardennes. In Russia a year later, he gave his generals considerable freedom of action while the campaign was going well and took their advice. When he intervened, it was not because he was a fanatic, but because he was indecisive and could not decide between conflicting courses of action proposed by his generals. Fritz reminds us that the German General Staff was not, as the myth would have it, pragmatic, highly professional, and operationally brilliant. The clique-ridden officer corps' decisions were often driven by force of personalities, political intrigue, and petty, internecine rivalries. [End Page 191] The book's twelve chapters cover, among other things, Hitler's reading of Clausewitz; the ideology of Lebensraum; the planning and execution of Operation Barbarossa; and how Hitler's military decisions determined the war's final outcome. Fritz situates Hitler's military leadership within the context of Clausewitz's concept of absolute war and argues that Hitler's experiences in the trenches of World War I ultimately shaped his vision for World War II. Germany's catastrophic defeat in 1918 brought Hitler to the realization that it simply lacked the resources necessary, on its own, to attain world-power status. Germany would have to acquire Lebensraum (living space) in order to compensate for its vulnerable geographic location and its inferiority in resources. World War II, then, would therefore be very different from World War I, a struggle for national existence that would allow for no compromise. Underpinning Hitler's strategic rationale, Fritz argues, was his fixation on Lebensraum—that space and resources were essential for Germany to attain world-power status. Placing the ideological nature of Hitler's military leadership within the Reich's larger plans to colonize the territory west of the Ural Mountains, he links Hitler's attack on Russia in 1941 with the belief that Germany had a closing window of opportunity to seize the resources ultimately to challenge the United States for global dominance and avoid a repetition of 1918. Many of Hitler's controversial military decisions, ranging from his "no retreat" order before Moscow...

A New External Equilibrium: Revisiting the 'Transformation of Europe' Under the Principle of the Autonomy of the European Union

This short paper puts forth the idea of a “new external equilibrium” between the different actors of the European Union and proposes to revisit the classic dualism of exit and voice as suggested by Albert Hirschman and applied to European integration by Joseph H. H. Weiler. By resorting to the idea of an internal equilibrium between European institutions and member states in the early times of European integration, the paper develops the concept of “new external equilibrium” as a necessary balance in the external integration of the EU. It is suggested that a shift has occurred and that the traditional internal clash between the CJEU and member states has now transformed into a more complex discussion between a broader range of actors with different power-relations being formed. One the one hand we have the CJEU which, through the use of the principle of “autonomy” of the EU, claims a new voice and curbs external integration. On the other hand, member states and the remaining institutions push for further external integration and a globalized Union of law. After examining this new distribution of the relative power between institutions, member states and the CJEU, this chapter attempts to explain some of the controversial decisions by the CJEU regarding external integration, such as Opinion 2/13 or Opinion 1/17.

Supreme Court Appointments in Presidential Election Years: The Case of John Hessin Clarke

Supreme Court Appointments in Presidential Election YearsThe Case of John Hessin Clarke Jonathan L. Entin (bio) When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly on February 13, 2016, Republicans in the US Senate immediately made clear that they would not consider any nominee proposed by President Barack Obama. Because 2016 was a presidential election year, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared within hours of Scalia’s passing: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice.”1 True to their word, the GOP-controlled Senate refused to take any action on Obama’s nomination of Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit as Justice Scalia’s successor. This inaction provoked widespread debate, but the vacancy remained open for President Donald J. Trump to appoint Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, of the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, to Scalia’s seat.2 The refusal to act on Judge Garland’s nomination marked the first time in 150 years that the Senate had completely stonewalled a Supreme Court [End Page 30] nominee.3 But this does not mean that the confirmation process used to be genteel or straightforward. Since World War II, the only two Supreme Court appointments that had occurred during a presidential election cycle illustrated the fraught nature of such matters. In October 1956, shortly after the opening of the Court’s new term, President Dwight D. Eisenhower nominated New Jersey Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. to succeed Justice Sherman Minton, who had retired for health reasons. Eisenhower chose Brennan in an effort to appeal to Catholic voters who traditionally supported Democrats.4 The president acted quickly to put Brennan on the Court, giving him a recess appointment that meant that he was able to hear cases before the Senate got a chance to vote on his confirmation. This posed two potential problems. First, because the recess appointment came before the election, Brennan might not have received a permanent appointment had Eisenhower lost.5 Second, even if Eisenhower won (as he of course did), the recess appointment could undermine Brennan’s independence on the bench because the Senate might retaliate against him for controversial decisions, or, more subtly, Brennan might at least subconsciously decide cases with that possibility in mind.6 In June 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren announced his retirement. The timing of the announcement was seen as a thinly veiled attempt to prevent the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Richard M. Nixon, from [End Page 31] appointing his successor. Warren and Nixon disliked each other from their days in Republican politics in their home state of California, and Nixon had strongly criticized the Warren Court’s liberal rulings on criminal law and procedure.7 President Lyndon B. Johnson, who was not seeking reelection, nominated Justice Abe Fortas as the new chief justice, but Republicans and southern Democrats in the Senate filibustered the nomination, and Fortas eventually withdrew.8 Despite the small number of postwar Supreme Court appointments in presidential election years, the prospect of such appointments fueled interbranch tensions. The Brennan appointment played a significant role in the Senate’s adoption of a resolution opposing recess appointments except in “unusual circumstances” to avoid “a demonstrable breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.”9 Although the resolution expressed only the sense of the Senate, the timing of this move was hardly coincidental: the vote occurred on August 29, 1960, just two days before Congress adjourned to concentrate on the general election, so it served as at least a symbolic warning against any last-minute recess appointments.10 Similarly, as Republicans often pointed out during the Garland stalemate, Vice President Joseph R. Biden, while chairing the Senate Judiciary Committee, had advised President George H. W. Bush not to try to push through a nominee while he was running for reelection in 1992.11 This warning also seemed like no idle threat, coming only a few years after the controversy over the failed nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork and the tumultuous confirmation process for Justice Clarence Thomas. It was not always thus. In 1932, a politically vulnerable President...

'Federal Constitutional Court to the ECB': Another Blow to the European Union Post-Brexit? Review of a Controversial Decision and Its Implications for the Eurozone and the Future of the European Union

This paper examines the consequences and implications of the decision of the BVerfG of 5 May 2020 not only regarding EU law, but also regarding the sustainability of the Eurozone. It explores the implications of this decision at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic and how it might be an early-onset of the collapse of the Euro. Likewise, it examines the consequences that the collapse of the Euro would have for Germany. Finally, it discusses how what appears to be a bane may be a blessing in disguise and a historical tipping point that could allow for the much hoped-for and expected reform of the EU and its internal functioning.

The Battle of Peach Tree Creek: Hood’s First Effort to Save Atlanta by Earl J. Hess

Reviewed by: The Battle of Peach Tree Creek: Hood’s First Effort to Save Atlanta by Earl J. Hess Paul Brueske The Battle of Peach Tree Creek: Hood’s First Effort to Save Atlanta. By Earl J. Hess. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2017. 344 pp. $37.50. ISBN 978-1-4696-3419-7. The Battle of Peach Tree Creek was the pivotal action of the Atlanta Campaign during the latter stages of the Civil War. Earl J. Hess, a talented storyteller and the author of numerous books on the Civil War, including the fascinating biography Braxton Bragg: The Most Hated Man of the Confederacy (Chapel Hill, 2016), will delight military history buffs with his latest effort. It provides insight on the drama created by the controversial decision of Confederate President Jefferson Davis to replace General Joseph E. Johnston with General John B. Hood and the dire consequences that decision had on the Battle of Peach Tree Creek. He does a fantastic job of narrating the battle, masterfully detailing the tactical movements of both armies, identifying the costly errors made, and incorporating the experiences of the individual soldiers. The dust jacket includes a blurb touting the book as a “new and definitive interpretation of the battle’s place within the Atlanta Campaign,” and Hess does not disappoint. In the summer of 1864 Union General William T. Sherman’s campaign for Atlanta was slowly but surely gaining ground against General Johnston’s conservative defense. Johnston’s strategy was based on his belief of preserving “the main field armies and holding out until the North exhausted itself in money and spirit” (28). Frustrated with what he perceived as Johnston’s timid leadership, Davis sent his military advisor, the former commander of the Army of Tennessee, Braxton Bragg, to assess the situation and gauge Johnston’s willingness to fight. Bragg was not forthright with Johnston on his mission, opting to “observe Johnston to see if there were any signs of fight in the general” (14). The visit motivated Johnston’s subordinate Hood to write Bragg a letter openly criticizing the commanding general’s strategy. Hess suggests this letter may have convinced Bragg that Hood should replace Johnston as the army’s leader, but also criticizes the letter as “duplicitous and irresponsible” and notes that Johnston was not “as supine” as Hood claimed. Hess observes that both Davis [End Page 174] and Bragg were awed by Hood’s accomplishments as a soldier and viewed him as “a breath of fresh air” that was sorely needed at the top of the Confederacy’s largest army in the Western Theater (14). Hess contends that President Davis’s decision to place Hood in command was poorly timed and ill-advised. He notes that Davis himself realized the importance of the move and the Confederate president even admitted he had hesitated too long. Davis, however, also believed Johnston’s strategy was too timid and believed it would be disastrous to continue a conservative defense of Atlanta. Through numerous primary source accounts, the author shows that the stunned Army of Tennessee was demoralized by Davis’s decision and that it had dire consequences for the impending Battle of Peach Tree Creek. “The men are bitterly opposed to the change and Swear that they will not fight under Hood,” wrote one southern soldier (17). Despite the letter Hood wrote to Bragg, Hess points out that Hood did not desire to take command of the Army of Tennessee and “was genuinely surprised at the appointment and tried to persuade Davis to change his mind”(15). The widespread disappointment of Johnston’s removal among the rank-and-file of the Army of Tennessee was not the only issue plaguing the newly-appointed commander. Hood was ill-equipped for such an important assignment. In addition to missing a leg and an arm, Hood––who had spent most of the war fighting in the Eastern Theater––had little time to open up proper lines of communication with his corps commanders and was deprived of vital intelligence as to the location of Sherman’s units. Hood lamented after the war “that it is difficult to imagine a commander placed at the head...