American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

While looking up something on Antietam I ran across McPherson's argument from Crossroads of Freedom:

No other campaign and battle in the war had such momentous, multiple consequences as Antietam. In July 1863 the dual Union triumphs at Gettysburg and Vicksburg struck another blow that blunted a renewed Confederate offensive in the East and cut off the western third of the Confederacy from the rest. In September 1864 Sherman's capture of Atlanta reversed another decline in Northern morale and set the stage for the final drive to Union victory. These also were pivotal moments. But they would never have happened if the triple Confederate offensives in Mississippi, Kentucky, and most of all Maryland had not been defeated in the fall of 1862.

– James M. McPherson, Crossroads of Freedom

I wrote a book report for this back in college in which I argued that McPherson over-emphasized the importance of McClellan's 'victory' ay Antietam. Even if Lee had managed to defeat McClellan he would have lacked the supplies and manpower to exploit any success. The Confederate defeats in the Perryville and Corinth Campaigns in 1862 were important but hardly major turning points in the war. Bragg's offensive into Kentucky was met by little popular support and he lacked any way of crossing the Ohio River or protecting his long supply line. With Nashville still held by Yankes in the Confederate rear how much success could Bragg ever have expected?

To me the "crossroads of freedom" are better associated with the 1864 Campaigns in Georgia and Virginia and Lincoln's reelection. If Lee, Bragg, and Van Dorn are all victorious in 1862 the North may have crumbled. But the chances of "winning" in those three campaigns was hardly realisitic. In 1864 the idea of "winning" for the Confederate Armies was not even a goal. The goal had shifted to making the war as bloody and hard on the Union as possible and hope for a negotiated peace.

Any thoughts?

The importance of the strategic victory of Antietam lay in in its precursor role in Lincoln's issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation which kept England on the side of the Union. While McPherson groups Antietam with other victories, this only diminishes its importance. Antietam led to the Emancipation and kept England from recognizing the South as a separate entity which surely would have had major consequences in the continuance of the war.

_________________
Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS ,Commanding

Gents,
I happen to agree with Drex here. Foreign intervention on pretty much any level would have been ruinous to the Union cause. Had Lee somehow defeated MacClellan convincingly, anywhere north of the Potomac, foreign intervention would have occurred on some level. Remember, Lee had just gone from having his back against the wall at Richmond, to in only eight weeks, being in Maryland and threatening Washington. To observers overseas, it looked like a sure victory by the CSA, a brilliant campaign wherein the underdog army of less than 80,000 men at it's strongest, had beaten Federal forces numbering at least twice that amount, and taken the fight to their enemy's doorstep. The events happened so fast, with so many resounding Confederate victories, one after another, that it must have seemed impossible that the Rebels could be stopped.
Had Britain, France or the combination of the two intervened in the war, it seems pretty certain that the Union would not have been able to effect the subjugation of the South. Defend their own borders, most certainly (the North just had so many damned people, that it seems unlikely that there would ever be British Grenadiers or the French Imperial Guard marching down Broad Street in Philadelphia) but the South would have been lost forever. The European powers might not have had very large armies (compared to the ones US Grant and WT Sherman fielded during the latter stages of the war) but their's were almost exclusively professionals, and a 35,000 man Corps of hardened pro's would have tipped the odds in any number of battles to the detriment of the Yankee's. Even had foreign intervention been only diplomatic, say peace talks while an armistice was in effect, it would only serve to help the Southern cause. Buying time was as important as beating Yankee armies. More time to make weapons, recruit and train men, harvest food, build rail-roads, whatever, but anything to try to catch up to the North in their ability to wage a war.

Antietam is probably the most important turning point in American history. I do not feel like I'm making an exaggeration in saying that. What the country was, before the events of September 17th 1862, it would not (and could not, and should never) be again. Had the Union lost at Sharpsburg; had Lee defeated them or slipped away to fight an even more destructive battle somewhere further north, the United States as we know it would likely not exist. On a day where almost 16,000 Americans were either killed or wounded in little under 12 hours, how it was that it is not a National Day of Mourning? On a day that saw the initiation of a piece of legislation that freed millions of Americans from slavery, how is it that it is not a National Holiday?

Okay, sorry to preach. I've actually been thinking a lot about this subject prior to seeing this post, but it's been good to get it out to a group of people who would understand what I'm talking about.

<salute>

_________________
Brig. Gen. Nick DeStefano
5th Artillery Battalion, 2nd Division, II "Wolf-Pack" Corps, AotM
[img]http://www.acwgc.org/IVCorps/Image/IVCorps250.png[/img]

Good thoughts guys. I posted this as the battle anniversary got me thinking on many of the same topics. Foreign intervention was always a possibility and it is true that the defeat of Lee at Antietam did much to persuade Britain and France to stay out of the War. But the war was not "won" at Antietam by the North. The fate of the nation still hung in the balance until 1864. If Grant had been thrashed in the Wilderness and Sherman repulsed outside of Atlanta then the hollow victory at Antietam would have been for nothing. Lincoln would have been defeated and, quite probably, the South would have gained its independence. The events of 1862 were critical but I still believe the North doesnt "win" the war until 1864. By 1865 it was a 'lost cause' for the South and everyone except Davis seemed to know it. After Antietam the South was still fighting hard and believed it could win. After 1864 there was no such hope.

Should September 17 be a National Holiday? I dont think so. The Civil War wounds are tender and in the south and its best to let sleeping dogs lie. July 4th works for everyone and celebrates our Independence. Add a BBQ, fireworks, a John Wayne movie and a ballgame on TV and you got yourself a hell of a day planned!

I think that is true. We do not celebrate any one battle in any war, except Pearl Harbor. I think it would not be constructive to either side to emphasize any of the Civil War battles, individually. Even after 150 years it would not be appropriate.

As for the signing of Emancipation Proclamation being a holiday? It was a defining event in American history, but it took another 100 years to finally see it reach it's true potential.

Plus, the passing of the 13th Amendment, ratified on December 6, 1865, was the law that really ended slavery.

What is interesting is the following list of DATES that the various states (of the 36 states existent at the time) ratified the 13th Amendment:
1. Illinois (February 1, 1865)
2. Rhode Island (February 2, 1865)
3. Michigan (February 3, 1865)
4. Maryland (February 3, 1865)
5. New York (February 3, 1865)
6. Pennsylvania (February 3, 1865)
7. West Virginia (February 3, 1865)
8. Missouri (February 6, 1865)
9. Maine (February 7, 1865)
10. Kansas (February 7, 1865)
11. Massachusetts (February 7, 1865)
12. Virginia (February 9, 1865)
13. Ohio (February 10, 1865)
14. Indiana (February 13, 1865)
15. Nevada (February 16, 1865)
16. Louisiana (February 17, 1865)
17. Minnesota (February 23, 1865)
18. Wisconsin (February 24, 1865)
19. Vermont (March 8, 1865)
20. Tennessee (April 7, 1865)
21. Arkansas (April 14, 1865)
22. Connecticut (May 4, 1865)
23. New Hampshire (July 1, 1865)
24. South Carolina (November 13, 1865)
25. Alabama (December 2, 1865)
26. North Carolina (December 4, 1865)
27. Georgia (December 6, 1865)

Ratification was completed on December 6, 1865. The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states:

1. Oregon (December 8, 1865)
2. California (December 19, 1865)
3. Florida (December 28, 1865, reaffirmed on June 9, 1869)
4. Iowa (January 15, 1866)
5. New Jersey (January 23, 1866, after having rejected it on March 16, 1865)
6. Texas (February 18, 1870)
7. Delaware (February 12, 1901, after having rejected it on February 8, 1865)
8. Kentucky (March 18, 1976, after having rejected it on February 24, 1865)
9. Mississippi (March 16, 1995, after having rejected it on December 5, 1865)

_________________
General Ernie Sands
President ACWGC -Sept 2015- Dec 2020
7th Brigade, 1st Division, XVI Corps, AoT
ACWGC Records Site Admin

"If you do not know where you are going, any road will take you there."

Good points, Ernie. We really dont celebrate any "battle" anniversaries in this nation. If we did I would vote for March 6 as being the most important date to celebrate. March is a 'slow' month for holidays and March 6 would celebrate the history of the Alamo and the Texas struggle for Independence. Much like the December 7 rememberances there is nothing Americans love more than a good underdog story and the Alamo is the greatest of them all. Bunker Hill, Yorktown, San Juan Hill, or VE-day would be good dates to mark as well.

As for a Civil War holiday I think there would be no way to agree on any single day. The Southern states still celebrate Confederate Memorial Day though not even they can agree on a set day. Some use Davis's birthday and others the day that either Lee or Johnston surrendered.

Blake,
I also think it odd that we invented the Holiday of May Day and yet don't celebrate it (don't want those workers asking too many questions now, do we?). On some calenders I've seen recently, September 11th is called "Patriot Day", so apparently they're naming that a national day of something or another...
We don't celebrate December 7th, it's just that it's recent enough that people still mention it on the news when the day rolls around. It isn't as if it's a holiday in any state (not even in Hawaii, as far as I know).
Blake, sadly, your comment about wounds being tender in the South seems...misguided. The whole point is to remember, no matter how painful it is to do so. The pain is what makes the event real, what brings it home, otherwise it's just a date in a book and the number 16,000 doesn't mean anything, especially not that they were all Americans who had their lives either ended or cruelly changed forever. Are we doing their memory a service by sweeping their pain and loss under the rug so as not to reignite 150 year old passions? There's an old trope about "those who fail to learn the lessons of history having to take it again in summer school" , but it really is true.


<salute>

_________________
Brig. Gen. Nick DeStefano
5th Artillery Battalion, 2nd Division, II "Wolf-Pack" Corps, AotM
[img]http://www.acwgc.org/IVCorps/Image/IVCorps250.png[/img]

There's a difference between a date being remembered or celebrated. Battles are often remembered but rarely are celebrated (Cinco de Mayo). Celebrations are held for events leading to some happy conclusion.

_________________
Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS ,Commanding

Nick,
Civil War rememberances and celebrations have always been controversial in this country since the Civil Rights movement. The Eternal Light Peace Memorial and the large battlefield celebrations of the 1890s to 1930s were unique. They helped to heal the wounds, bring together veterans, and mark the battlefields. We have since moved past honoring and have entered the stage of interpreting though. While Lincoln remarked at Gettysburg "the world can never forget what they did here," that is no longer good enough. People want to know "why they did what they did there," and not simply what they did. This is a much more tricky question. Both sides are going to agree that the Civil War was important and should be remembered... but I dont think there can ever be a consensus on how best to do so.

In the age of political correctness we all know that traditional "southern" culture is under attack. The Georgia state flag has been altered to remove the Confederate flag from it, Mississippi's state flag is being targeted next, South Carolina removed their Rebel flag from the capital and the Mississippi State Rebels banned Rebel flags from home football games. From the southern perspective such attacks on the heritage of the South is evidence that modern interpretation of the Civil War is more about honoring the Yankee deeds and condemning the Southern actions. I believe the National Park Service does a good job in trying to present all sides of the story at National Battlefields. Its only when the mass media or politicians get involved that things get ugly.

While living in Tennessee from 2003 - 2008 there were three major/minor state controversies concerning Confederate heritage. First, at my University in Murfreesboro the Nathan Bedford Forrest ROTC Building was targeted by certain groups that demanded it be renamed. Obviously, other groups demanded it remain the same to honor Forrest as one of the military genius's of the Civil War. In the end they eliminated Nathan Bedford from the title and now the sign reads Forrest ROTC. This made nobody happy and the arguments continue. Second, there is a Forrest statue off of Interstate 65 that a man built on his own propoerty and surrounded with Rebel flags. This has been a lightening rod for controversy from the start with the two sides, again, arguing heritage versus hate. The statue still stands though it is the target of an occasional drive-by shooting. Third, Vanderbilt University in Nashville has a Confederate Memorial Hall on campus that was built with funds donated by the Daughters of the Confederacy. A few years back the University tried to rename the hall as they felt it made students feel uncomfortable. The UDC sued the school and the Courts ruled that the UDC was guaranteed the naming rights and that the University could not change the name without paying the UDC to do so. To 'bypass' this the University deleted the word 'Confederate' from all publications and now refer to the building as Memorial Hall.

Can the North and South ever agree on a shared 'interpretation' of the war and how best to commemorate it? I dont think so. The two sides remain entrenched and despite generations having passed I dont see this changing in my lifetime. I'd like to see a holiday commemorating the Civil War but if you and I, who share the same Army and are friends, can't agree on a day... imagine the brawl our elected officials would have over it in DC! Will it get as bad as the pre-Civil War debates in Congress during which Senator Hammond wrote a friend saying, “The only persons who do not have a revolver and a knife are those who have two revolvers.” No, of course not, but it would still be a mess. But, is the North/South divide today detrimental to our nation? Not at all. The majority of Presidents and soldiers still come from the South and there is no more patriotic section of this nation than the Southeast. North and South get along fine 99.9% of the time and we have come a long way in just 150 years. Just dont scratch the surface too much or you will still find a lot of old Rebs down there

The other importance of Antietam was in the morale boost it gave the Union and the AoP. Up to then, ol' Bobby Lee had his way with Army of the Potomac and this showed the army and the country that the Union could win.

_________________
General Mark Nelms

3/2/XX/AoC "Blackhawk Brigade"

Union Military Academy Instructor