What does Catton mean about Antietam's consequences?

[Booklady]

Please forgive me if this is an elementary question in a post-doc classroom.

In This Hallowed Ground, Bruce Catton writes, "Incomplete and imperfect as it had been, Antietam was a decisive Union victory. It had broken the great southern counteroffensive, it had given Lincoln the opening he needed, and it would change the character of the entire war, turning it openly and irrevocably into a war against slavery...."

Can someone explain this conclusion, please -- the part I italicized? Is it that Lincoln now felt empowered to issue the Emancipation Proclamation?

 

[Michael C. Hardy]

Up until September 1862, the war had been about preserving the Union. Just a month before, Lincoln told Horace Greeley: "As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

 

[marco75]

I think it's also the military side, to the political question of emancipation. At that time there were important people in England talking about supporting the Confederacy. Who knows what could happen with a southern success in the Maryland campaign. With the retreat back to Virginia and the Proclamation that possibility was gone. And I think it was the only Chance the Confederacy had to win theire Independence.
Like always that's just my opinion

 

[Booklady]

Thank you both for the replies.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Please forgive me if this is an elementary question in a post-doc classroom.

In This Hallowed Ground, Bruce Catton writes, "Incomplete and imperfect as it had been, Antietam was a decisive Union victory. It had broken the great southern counteroffensive, it had given Lincoln the opening he needed, and it would change the character of the entire war, turning it openly and irrevocably into a war against slavery...."

Can someone explain this conclusion, please -- the part I italicized? Is it that Lincoln now felt empowered to issue the Emancipation Proclamation?

Yes indeed.

 

[wausaubob]

The big land battles played to the advantage of the Confederates. Early in the war, and up to Antietam, 17 months into the main shooting part of the war, the US was still trying to build its military system. The starting point in terms of manpower was near zero. But the US had the know how. If the Confederates did not win at Antietam, the US was going to over power the Confederacy in due course.
If the Confederate advantage in tactics did not produce a victory in September 1862, the US advantages would increase.
I don't think Catton's remark is completely correct. The men in Congress, that were passing the tax increases, and authorizing the borrowing were fed up by July of 1862. The abolition of slavery, simply as a matter of revenge, as on the agenda after July.

 

[Booklady]

The big land battles played to the advantage of the Confederates. Early in the war, and up to Antietam, 17 months into the main shooting part of the war, the US was still trying to build its military system. The starting point in terms of manpower was near zero. But the US had the know how. If the Confederates did not win at Antietam, the US was going to over power the Confederacy in due course.
If the Confederate advantage in tactics did not produce a victory in September 1862, the US advantages would increase.
I don't think Catton's remark is completely correct. The men in Congress, that were passing the tax increases, and authorizing the borrowing were fed up by July of 1862. The abolition of slavery, simply as a matter of revenge, as on the agenda after July.

Thanks for your reply, and for remarking upon whether Catton was entirely correct. I wondered about that, too.

Edited to add: "revenge"! The word is echoing through my mind. Have I heard this word in connection with the North's pursuit (not chasing, but carrying out) the war? I don't think so. Interesting.

 

[wausaubob]

Thanks for your reply, and for remarking upon whether Catton was entirely correct. I wondered about that, too.

Edited to add: "revenge"! The word is echoing through my mind. Have I heard this word in connection with the North's pursuit (not chasing, but carrying out) the war? I don't think so. Interesting.

The revenge factor was probably not directed at the south generally. It was directed at the plantation owner class that had created the secessionist movement. The northern politicians were voting for many things that they did want, but were necessary. And the northern Democrats may have been especially put out because they had supported the continuance of slavery even when it was costing them votes. The second confiscation act of July 1862 was directed at slavery.

 

[Booklady]

The revenge factor was probably not directed at the south generally. It was directed at the plantation owner class that had created the secessionist movement. The northern politicians were voting for many things that they did want, but were necessary. And the northern Democrats may have been especially put out because they had supported the continuance of slavery even when it was costing them votes. The second confiscation act of July 1862 was directed at slavery.

Great perspective, and very interesting. Thanks.

 

[Jantzen64]

Please forgive me if this is an elementary question in a post-doc classroom.

In This Hallowed Ground, Bruce Catton writes, "Incomplete and imperfect as it had been, Antietam was a decisive Union victory. It had broken the great southern counteroffensive, it had given Lincoln the opening he needed, and it would change the character of the entire war, turning it openly and irrevocably into a war against slavery...."

Can someone explain this conclusion, please -- the part I italicized? Is it that Lincoln now felt empowered to issue the Emancipation Proclamation?

Lincoln had been evaluating some type of emancipation proclamation for a while, and actually had a draft of one at the time he wrote the letter to Greeley quoted in post # 2. But Lincoln and his advisors knew that, with England and Europe watching, issuing such a proclamation when the war was going poorly would be interpreted as an act of desperation. The "victory" at Antietam and Lee's retreat paved the way for Lincoln to take action from a position of relative strength, without it looking like he was resorting to blacks to save the Union.

 

[neyankee61]

Lincoln wanted to stay ahead of the tide. Congress had passed stronger and stronger confiscation acts and was willing to pay some slaveholders if they freed their slaves. Lincoln signed into law an act abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia on April 16, 1862.

 

[wausaubob]

The course was set very early. As Grant remarked in a letter to his father, the sentiment was that unless the secessionists gave up their experiment very quickly, there was going to be a war on slavery. Grant's political connections were to Washburne and through him to William Steward. I think Grant in his letter was merely repeating what national politicians were thinking.
In terms of big land battles, Catton's remark makes sense. But the US had already occupied Nashville, New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Memphis. The blockade stations were well established. And the news was trickling in over the Summer that in the far west things were proceeding advantageously for the United States.
In terms of legislation, with the secessionist representatives not in Congress, there had been a revolution. What had already been done was the foundation of a modern nation with a unified currency and broad homestead opportunity.

 

[Booklady]

But did Antietam really change the course of pursuing war to keep the nation together?

 

[wausaubob]

But did Antietam really change the course of pursuing war to keep the nation together?Pro

Probably not in the way Catton wrote. But if there were going to be bloody battles like Antietam, the single bloodiest day of the war, then the cause of the war was going to be removed to justify the expense. I think there was a realization in Washington, D.C. and even in London, that something revolutionary was going to happen.
Evidence that would sustain Catton's conclusion would be that Lincoln and Seward realized they couldn't work with Buell and McClellan any longer. The gap between the generals and the hard war that was coming was too large to be reconciled.

 

[Booklady]

I really appreciate all these replies. Thanks for taking the question seriously and making the time to reply.

 

[tony_gunter]

But did Antietam really change the course of pursuing war to keep the nation together?

What's the famous Clausewitz line, something like war is the continuation of policy by other means?

Emancipation was a radically progressive idea, and Lincoln was loathe to touch slavery until anti-slavery sentiment amongst the moderate voters grew strong enough. The publication of the EP was an acknowledgement that the costs of war had shifted public opinion in the north such that even moderates were of the opinion that a killing blow must be landed on the slave powers to reunite the nation.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

But did Antietam really change the course of pursuing war to keep the nation together?

I think it was less a course change than an important step forward. The Confiscation Acts had pointed the way. It's hard to see how the would could go on as long as it did without this happening. The longer the war went on the more it became a question of when and how rather than if.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

It occurs to me that in some alternate timeline, where Lee doesn't invade Maryland or falls back across the Potomac rather than stand and fight, that Perryville might be one of the most famous battles of the war because it led to the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

[wausaubob]

It occurs to me that in some alternate timeline, where Lee doesn't invade Maryland or falls back across the Potomac rather than stand and fight, that Perryville might be one of the most famous battles of the war because it led to the Emancipation Proclamation.

It could have easily happened the way you suggest.

 

[Bruce Vail]

Let's not get carried away in praise for Catton. Antietam was not a decisive union victory, at least in any military sense. It was victory, yes, but the "great southern counteroffensive" would resume dramatically in June 1863, and the see-saw war in the East would go on unchanged until mid-1864.

While the political importance of the EP cannot be overstated, let's also remember the Confederates considered the War a direct assault on slavery from day one.