The Battle of Antietam: A Civil War Watershed?

To pre-order your space in Professor Gallagher's upcoming course, Abraham Lincoln, visit: www.foreverscholars.com/produ...
To learn more about this lecture, please visit: www.foreverscholars.com/a-civ...
The battle of Antietam shows up on almost all lists of Civil War turning points. The bloodiest single day in United States history, with more than 23,000 casualties, it also afforded Abraham Lincoln the opportunity to issue his preliminary proclamation of emancipation. This lecture will examine reactions to the battle in the United States and the Confederacy-looking at both military and civilian witnesses to explore how contemporary and retrospective assessments of historical events often diverge.

[@bryanfields5563]

Always a treast to hear Dr. Gallagher's views and perspective.

[@brentinnes5151]

Antietam has always fascinated me possibly more than any other battle

[@3251JOE]

On Thomas' question about Lee getting tepid support in the slave state of Maryland: according to the 1860 census, Maryland had approximately 687,000 citizens. 84,000 were free African-Americans while 87,000 were slaves. That leaves a white population of 516,000 of which only 14,000, or less than 3%, owned slaves. Most of these were concentrated in the southern counties and the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Yet, Lee invaded through two of the western counties where there was very strong pro-Union sentiment. According to Dennis Frye, a renowned Park Ranger and Civil War historian, Lee had no intention whatsoever of staying in Maryland to recruit or fight at Sharpsburg. He was headed fo Pennsylvania to gather supplies from the rich central Pennsylvania farm country, do as much other mischief as possible and, most importantly, lure the Army of the Potomac to ground of his choosing on which to give battle. Lee's miscalculations were thinking the Harpers Ferry garrison could be captured in about two days, leaving him plenty of time to cross the Mason-Dixon line, and thinking McClellan would not move west as fast as he did. Perhaps youi can tell I'm a proud son of Maryland and deeply interested in our Civil War.

[@brentinnes5151]

I think you could possibly be very knowledgeable about this real insurrection

[@mrdinkelpuss4000]

The civil war was cool

[@johnresto1603]

Nothing cool about over 750,000 casualties.

[@ritahelengregory5337]

The families of killed and wounded did not think it was cool... The soldiers who were maimed, lost limbs, etc. to struggle the rest of their lives with their disabilities, did not think that anything about it was cool.
Much suffering was endured during that war and antibiotics had not been invented yet, and sterile surgical techniques had yet to be realized.
Nothing about any of the communicable diseases that spread in camps which affected too many soldiers and killed them, was Far from being Cool!!!
The Civil War was miserable in so many different ways, and definitely NOT COOL!!!!

[@avenaoat]

@@ritahelengregory5337 More soldiers died in illnessess as in battles about 5:3 !

[@N2Dressage001]

Order 191 has always fascinated me. My view is it was not a "lost" order, but rather a ruse concocted by Gens. Lee and Jackson. Lee needed to take Harper's Ferry to keep an escape route open to the Shenandoah where he could rest his depleted army after 2d Manassas. The Order kept McClellan from advancing to HF, enticing him to Sharpsburg, which was a perfect shorter, tighter battle line. McClellan did just that.

[@johnresto1603]

Interesting thought

[@kevin6293]

But the order accurately described the confederate troop locations. I think Lee would have put a lot more men at the South Mountain gaps, and sent fewer to Hagerstown.

[@joeryanstrialbook2005]

@@kevin6293 Kevin needs to _read_ the Order. It does not, in fact, "accurately" describe the Confederate troop locations. And Dressage's interesting thought comes from reading _Special Order 191: Ruse of War._

[@kevin6293]

@@joeryanstrialbook2005 are you going to say which part of the order was inaccurate, or just make groundless assertions?

[@joeryanstrialbook2005]

@@kevin6293 Hey, It's for you to _read_ the English written, not for me to explain it to you.

[@irockuroll60]

Gary contradicts himself…if the south was a different country as he he claims in multiple other videos-then, the emancipation had no bearing on the south as it was a different country and not bound by US law

[@bludfyre]

That is true... however, any territory captured by Union troops would then fall under the Emancipation Proclamation. What that did internationally was say to the British and French (who were considering recognizing the Confederacy, and possibly opening trade negotiations and then disrupting the US blockade) "if you support the Confederate States of America, you will be supporting slavery. Stay out if the conflict, and as we advance, we will free the slaves held in those lands."

[@lds2484]

Gary argues that the CSA did formally constitute a nation, which has no bearing on the fact that it was formed illegally and that its territory and people were subject to the laws of the United States, which had the right to issue the Emancipation Proclamation to undermine the economy of traitorous rebels.