Question about Antietam

[Jamieva]

We did an entire multi page thread in the last year of people arguing over the army strengths for Antietam. I hope this thread doesn't go down that path.

 

[rhettbutler1865]

Well met!

Yes, brassShakespeare once again said it succinctly! Welcome from Minnesota.

 

[Cumpston1862]

We did an entire multi page thread in the last year of people arguing over the army strengths for Antietam. I hope this thread doesn't go down that path.

Jamieva I agree.

Sometimes it is necessary to "agree to disagree" as we all seem to get different conclusions with the same or multiple pieces of information.

 

[Sbc]

McClellan did not have any real movement going for 18 hours after he was aware of the Lost Order 191, which told him Lee had split up his army. He's usually compared with Lee in that regard, and it's thought if positions were reversed, Lee would have been moving much faster. I agree with that line of thinking.

McClellan was said to have "the slows" in the field. IMO he was marvelous at forming an army and getting it ready for battle, but when it came to actually carrying out battle, he was very deliberate and slow about it. That showed up again after the battle, when Lee was allowed to slip away without McClellan offering any real pursuit. McClellan did not move his army at all for weeks.

Some have thought McClellan moved slowly because he really did not want to defeat the Confederate army, that he might have had some political motive to keep the war going until some compromise preserving slavery in some way could happen. I have no opinion whether he had something like that at the back of his mind, but I don't think there is any evidence he was that traitorous intentionally. I think he was just very, very careful about "his" army and as a result, lacked the boldness and quickness necessary to counter Lee.

Count the 16th Conn among those green troops

 

[ole]

Both armies were grasping at creating an army. Neither side had one. Each had to create one.

 

[13th Missouri Cavalry]

McClellan did not have any real movement going for 18 hours after he was aware of the Lost Order 191, which told him Lee had split up his army. He's usually compared with Lee in that regard, and it's thought if positions were reversed, Lee would have been moving much faster. I agree with that line of thinking.

McClellan was said to have "the slows" in the field. IMO he was marvelous at forming an army and getting it ready for battle, but when it came to actually carrying out battle, he was very deliberate and slow about it. That showed up again after the battle, when Lee was allowed to slip away without McClellan offering any real pursuit. McClellan did not move his army at all for weeks.

Some have thought McClellan moved slowly because he really did not want to defeat the Confederate army, that he might have had some political motive to keep the war going until some compromise preserving slavery in some way could happen. I have no opinion whether he had something like that at the back of his mind, but I don't think there is any evidence he was that traitorous intentionally. I think he was just very, very careful about "his" army and as a result, lacked the boldness and quickness necessary to counter Lee.

He was certainly suspected by his enemies in Washington to be of traitorous intent. He did once write home to his wife, after reading a particularly moving book about the hardships of slaves , which said in effect that he felt sorry for the slave , yet the contradiction between this letter and his actions is very strong indeed.

 

[Booner]

getting further away from the OP, but is it safe to say the south fought at Antietam like it was a bigger army?

 

[67th Tigers]

McClellan did not have any real movement going for 18 hours after he was aware of the Lost Order 191, which told him Lee had split up his army. He's usually compared with Lee in that regard, and it's thought if positions were reversed, Lee would have been moving much faster. I agree with that line of thinking.

That's odd, because he launched 9th Corps to attack South Mountain ca. 3 hours BEFORE he was handed SO191.

 

[Terence MacManus]

That's odd, because he launched 9th Corps to attack South Mountain ca. 3 hours BEFORE he was handed SO191.

Source?

What is the best single volume book on Antietam, in your opinion? I have the Sears book, which is great in some ways but lacking in others.

 

[Andrew]

Source?

What is the best single volume book on Antietam, in your opinion? I have the Sears book, which is great in some ways but lacking in others.

I know you weren't quoting me, and I don't know the original source, but I have recently read the same info in the secondary source, Unfurl Those Colors! by Armstrong. It's a more measured evaluation of McClellan and Sumner than Sears', but is more limited in its focus.

For a single-volume on Antietam, you may want to check out Taken at the Flood by Joseph Harsh. I am currently reading To Antietam Creek by Hartwig. It's a very thorough account of the MD campaign up through Sep 16.

 

[67th Tigers]

Source?

What is the best single volume book on Antietam, in your opinion? I have the Sears book, which is great in some ways but lacking in others.

See the notes in Hartwig. He tracks McClellan's movements.

He despatched 9th Corps around 1200 to South Mountain and from 1400-1430 he was with Joseph Cox inspecting the lead division marching out to SM and giving verbal instructions to the lead division. When he returned to HQ (which was only established around 1400) the copy of SO191 arrived shortly thereafter.

As to single volumes - tricky.

Hartwig's 2 volume work (second volume still in preparation) is likely to become the standard. In the absence of that Joseph Harsh's "Taken at the Flood" is likely the best work, but is best read with the two "companion" volumes. The great shame is Harsh was writing the book of McClellan's strategy when he died...

 

[Terence MacManus]

See the notes in Hartwig. He tracks McClellan's movements.

He despatched 9th Corps around 1200 to South Mountain and from 1400-1430 he was with Joseph Cox inspecting the lead division marching out to SM and giving verbal instructions to the lead division. When he returned to HQ (which was only established around 1400) the copy of SO191 arrived shortly thereafter.

As to single volumes - tricky.

Hartwig's 2 volume work (second volume still in preparation) is likely to become the standard. In the absence of that Joseph Harsh's "Taken at the Flood" is likely the best work, but is best read with the two "companion" volumes. The great shame is Harsh was writing the book of McClellan's strategy when he died...

Cool. You ever read the 2 volume work of Ezra Carmen? http://www.amazon.com/dp/1932714812/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

 

[67th Tigers]

Cool. You ever read the 2 volume work of Ezra Carmen? http://www.amazon.com/dp/1932714812/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

Yes, and I'm waiting for the third and final volume (covering the pursuit from Antietam and the Loudon Valley campaign afterwards). Tom Clemens has finished it I think, and Pierro's version cut the end off entirely as really the opening of the Fredericksburg campaign.