Civil War History - The Eastern TheaterDiscuss any and all battles, movements, and events occuring in the Eastern Theater here! This includes any actions in tha area east of the Appalachian Mountains in the vicinity of the river capitals of Richmond and Washington D.C.
Why is not the Battle of South Mountain consider a loss on General Lee's record?
He sent what few forces he had to cover the mountain gaps. He plan on holding the gaps until he could consolidate his army. His force were unable to hold all the gaps and General McClellan was able to open one of the gaps.
Lee was forced to fall fall back. He was only saved because General McClellan waited something like 18 hours to move through the gaps, which was the time Lee needed to bring his army together.
As we know the Battle of Sharpsburg was fought next.
It is obvious the Battle of South Mountain was not part of the Sharpeburg battle so why is it not listed as a defeat on Lee's record? The Battle of South Mountain is noted as a victory for the union and a moral booster back then. I see it is left off Lee's resume, why?
The Battle of South Mountain reminds me of Grant's fight at Belmont. Neither of these two actions ever show up on their records as losses. They seem to just be overlooked by history.
Any answers....
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
Why is not the Battle of South Mountain consider a loss on General Lee's record?
He sent what few forces he had to cover the mountain gaps. He plan on holding the gaps until he could consolidate his army. His force were unable to hold all the gaps and General McClellan was able to open one of the gaps.
Lee was forced to fall fall back. He was only saved because General McClellan waited something like 18 hours to move through the gaps, which was the time Lee needed to bring his army together.
As we know the Battle of Sharpsburg was fought next.
It is obvious the Battle of South Mountain was not part of the Sharpeburg battle so why is it not listed as a defeat on Lee's record? The Battle of South Mountain is noted as a victory for the union and a moral booster back then. I see it is left off Lee's resume, why?
The Battle of South Mountain reminds me of Grant's fight at Belmont. Neither of these two actions ever show up on their records as losses. They seem to just be overlooked by history.
Any answers....
Belmont is a raid. The entire intention of it was for Grant to take his troops down there, rap the Rebels sharply, find out what they were doing, get his men a bit of combat and experience -- and then get back on the boats to be gone before the Rebels brought troops across the river to crush them. The first part went mighty well for Grant; the second part not as well as he would have liked. As a result, both sides have a few good things to crow about, and a few things exposed they really needed to work on. The final result is about the best that should be expected before it started by the Union, and the Rebel response was enough to gloss over the embarassment at the start of the fight. Hard to call Belmont a victory or a defeat for Grant. It is much closer to a "live-training" exercise with the enemy shooting real bullets.
For Lee, South Mountain is really a delaying action, brought on by the need to gain time for his scattered columns to gather and for Jackson to take Harpers Ferry. Lee accomplished those goals by making use of the rugged terrain; McClellan needed to push him out of the way faster and drive him down the other side of the mountain to win here.
Lee and the ANV succeeded by dint of hard-fighting in gaining the time, and followed that up by bluffing McClellan into a delay on the following day. If there are any positive results of the South Mountain battle, they are in favor of the Confederates, so it would be quite hard to count it as a defeat for Lee. OTOH, the only victory he gained was in time, which can only be measured in how it allowed Lee to gather his forces and fight the battle of Antietam, or in the surrender of Harpers Ferry to Jackson.
In effect, South Mountain is like watching someone drive for the hoop in a basketball game, only to find that the defender has stiffled him and he has to pull back and try again. Not decisive in any way, and simply leading to the next play.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Concur that South Mountain was only meant to be a delaying action by Lee until his army could be consolidated. It bought just enough time for him to deploy at Antietam/Sharspburg.
Now, if you want to look at Bobby Lee's defeats, look no further than West Virginia which he couldn't hold onto.
Although I can see that South Mountain might be considered a battle which Lee lost, I have always seen it as a prelude.... not a separate battle.
There were also a few skirmishes on the 16th and the 18th. Are they to be given the status of a battle?
Naah. Let the sleeping dog lie. I'll not lie awake tonight thinking about it.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
McClellan may have pushed Lee back, but Lee wasn't trying to hold the ground any longer than necessary. Just long enough to stall him.
Not too unlike how Buford stalled Heth in the early morning of July 1 at Gettysburg.
Do we not agree that Buford lost on that first day at Gettysburg.
Then should we not agree that Lee lost the battle of South Mountain for the union did gain access to one of the gaps forcing Lee to pull back. Plus, the battle did not delay the union for it was McClellan's caution that delay the union.
From what little I have read the union papers play up South Mountain battle as a victory kind of like Ft. Henry.
We could do as Ole and let Lee the myth carry on...
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
Buford in his holding action? H--- no. He did exactly what he intended to do and did it splendidly.
It delayed the Union by forcing McClellan to fight, instead of simply marching. -1 day.
You could call it a defeat if you could come up with something that forced Lee to fall back that day.
I don't have any interest in defending Lee more than he deserves, here or elsewhere. But judging by his objectives versus McClellan's, Lee accomplished what his reason for fighting on that ground was, McClellan failed to accomplish his goal...or at least, what should have been his goal.
As gary stated, if you want to look at really unambiguous defeats on Lee's part, look at West Virginia. I can think of reasons why he failed that he can't be blamed for, but he certainly lost there.
__________________ Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less. - Robert E. Lee
The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just. - Abraham Lincoln
I do not want to belabor the point but there were four gaps to cover and at the end of the day one was taken by McClellan making the others unattainable. Lee was force to with drew if he could have hailed the gaps there would have been no Sharpsburg maybe another fight somewhere else.
South Mountain has all the ear mark of a battle fought and one side winning and one side losing and position taken.
I will admit that Lee was not trying to create a Lee type victory but it was a battle.
I have notice stick an pin in a myth and the myth sticks back....there a reason why we have myths and heroes and we are willing to defend them as well....
Lore is powerful even if false....
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
1) McClellan's objective Do as much damage as possible and get in a position to tear apart Lee's army.
2) Lee's objective: Stall McClellan as long as possible to allow for the concentration of his scattered forces.
Neither side has any interest in the ground beyond this.
McClellan failed to do any significant damage to Lee's forces, and lost a day forcing the pass/es.
Or to put it another way:
Lee was able to avoid sustaining any significant damage to his forces and gained a day to concentrate his scattered forces.
If it was a defeat, it was a minor one at worst. Certainly, versus a commander more aggressive than McClellan, it could still have lead to a disaster, but that hypothetical scenario has no bearing on the actual, historical outcome.
So, what is your arguement in favor that this was a defeat worth the name? Losing ground is not very important when you've no pressing interest in it.
__________________ Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less. - Robert E. Lee
The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just. - Abraham Lincoln
Why do I keep seeing "tailspin" pop up on my internal screen?
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
An Overlooked defeat of Bobby Lee? 
Linear Mode
