Re: [TalkAntietam] Who won the battle of Antietam
- I recall once in a discussion about the battle of Monocacy the point was made that it was a tactical Confederate victory but a Union strategic victory which was ultimately more important. Perhaps that framework should be applied to Antietam also. Using that framework, it was clearly a strategic Union victory because it stopped Lee's plan to bring the war north and all of the benefits he hoped to derive from it (and had political and diplomatic benefits for the North as well). At best (from a CS viewpoint) it was a tactical draw. Therefore, overall it was a union victory evening assuming a tactical draw.
Thomas Clemens <clemenst@...> wrote: Exactly the point Joe harsh has made for years. If Meade "won"
Gettysburg then McClellan "won" Antietam. Again at gettysburg Lee left
with a lot of supplies, etc. but in both campaigns that was far from
his primary objective. In both instances that objective was not
fulfilled, and Meade?McClellan's was. That is a loss, any way you want
to slice it.
Thomas G. Clemens D.A.
Professor of History
Hagerstown Community College
>>> Stephen Recker <recker@...> 02/14/07 10:12 AM >>>Just got back from taking a tour of Gettysburg with a licensed guide.
He was very talented, but I noticed that up there they like to say that
Lee arrived in Pennsylvania with a record of 7-0-1. If Lee can be said
to have 'lost' Gettysburg, what makes Sharpsburg a draw?
Gallagher makes a good case for it being a strategic victory for Lee,
as he left with a lot of supplies and managed to keep the AOP out of
Virginia for so long. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- I am creating a matrix that displays, for each sector of the Maryland
Campaign, which state fought against which state. I have taken a crack
at Crampton's Gap and was wondering if any of you wouldn't mind taking
a look at it to see if I have it right. Thanks.