Talk:Battle of Antietam/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

2002 comments

More work needs to be done: Sharpsburg should link to maryland, and a map should be added. more info on what happened before, and what the battle meant for Lee's campaign. Any civil war buffs around? TeunSpaans 06:46 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC)

yeah..... this needs some serious reworking (does the writer know how to properly use commas?)...

A lot of editing has gone on. I assume these comments are now obsolete. Hal Jespersen 20:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

slight victory

Yeah, is he slightly dead, or all dead. Because slightly dead is partly alive. All dead all you can do is check the pockets for change. Heh, lemme guess north won but lost a lot of guys. Outcome of slight victory is very vague. Sounds like the north won, but whoever wrote it didn't like that much.

Someone has been watching "The Princess Bride" too much. haha

The battle was a Northern Victory, but it was not nearly complete, for McClellan, being the slow-poke that he is, refused to follow up his attacks from the 17th, and left Lee's army still intact, allowing it to safely cross back into Virginia.

That is, of course, in a very small nutshell.

Respectfully, Andrew

Date

According to this site, the battle was from Sept. 16-18, not just Sept. 17. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 22:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

September 16 skirmish

The fighting on September 16th between Meade's First Corps and Hood's division is often neglected. I added a short paragraph describing the basic action, which had the significance of tipping McClellan's intentions to Lee. The main fighting was of course on the 17th, with some light skirmishing again on the 18th.

Scott Mingus

Antietam?

Antietam redirects to this page. The lead says it's known as the Battle of Sharpsburg in the south, and it did indeed take place at Sharpsburg, MD - So why is it called Antietam? The article fails to mention this. --Golbez 16:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

See the first sentence in the "Battle" section. Hal Jespersen 20:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

victory?

Antietam is generally considered a tactical draw, although since Lee withdrew first from the battlefield, it is technically a Union tactical victory. However, there are 2 reasons why the article says that it was a strategic Union victory:

It terminated Lee's invasion of the North.
It gave Lincoln the positive military outcome that he needed to announce the Emancipation Proclamation.

Hal Jespersen 22:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

More time to type: There is actually a third reason, which is more tongue-in-cheek: the battle resulted in Lincoln removing McClellan from command, which was certainly a strategically valuable outcome. But more seriously, to deflect a possible counter argument that one may make: simply because McClellan had a fabulous opportunity and a larger army, the results of the battle are measured by the losses and by the effect the battle had, not by what might have been possible. Losses were reasonably comparable on both sides, although McClellan's losses were proportionately smaller than Lee's. Just because McClellan should have completely destroyed Lee's army does not mean that he lost the battle by failing to do so. Hal Jespersen 22:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that Sharpsburg/Antietam was a strategic victory. Lee's invasion of the north and McClellan's countermove was at the operational level, not strategic. The word 'strategy' is tossed around loosely in this article, where 'operational' is the proper term for armies participating in a campaign. (PS - Also, there are a lot of unsigned discussion points in here. Let's sign our stuff, folks!) CsikosLo 18:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You are making claims about military terminology that are not universally accepted. To give you an example, the Wikipedia article on military strategy uses the terms grand strategy and operational strategy, but the latter term points to an article called operational warfare; even the Wikipedia editors don't agree on the terminology. On the other hand, there are many examples extant in which the term grand strategy is not utilized, collapsing both grand and operational into simply "strategy." In the case of this article, Antietam was both an operational and a grand strategic victory. In terms of operational strategy, Lee's campaign of invading the North was defeated (even though the battle itself was essentially a draw). From a grand strategic standpoint, the Union victory transcended purely military considerations, effectively ruling out Confederate political alliances with European powers and changing the status quo on slavery. I think it is perfectly appropriate to combine the two types of strategies into a single phrase for the purposes of the information box. Hal Jespersen 22:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Victory for the South

When the Army of Northern Virginia withdrew across the Potomac it "allowed" Lincoln to lay claim it was a "strategic victory". He's a politician. He would.

In terms of casualties it was a bloody tie, although because the rebs withdrew it could be argued it was a technical victory for the North.

In terms of military ineptitude, it was a victory for the South precisely because McLellan was not able to defeat an army he outnumbered 3:1. If it had been a true strategic victory, Lincoln would have backed up his proclamation and not sacked McLellan. The fact he did shows he thought otherwise.

To call this a strategic victory is merely colluding with Lincoln's propoganda (and I an not a US citizen so don't have any bias whatsoever) and is just plain wrong. But you do what you like.

A good author as source; David Phillips.

Sorry, this is not like betting on a football game where there is a point spread the superior team has to exceed before being considered the victor. Lee avoiding destruction does not mean he won the battle. If he had caused significantly larger casualties on the other side, if he had forced McClellan to withdraw and continued the Confederate invasion of Maryland, if he had so discouraged Lincoln that it suppressed the Emancipation Proclamation (which truly was one of the turning points of the war), that would have been considered a victory. I am unfamiliar with David Phillips, but can cite James McPherson, Gary Gallagher, Bruce Catton, Stephen Sears, and Shelby Foote (just off the top of my head) as agreeing with my point of view on this. Hal Jespersen 01:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In terms of your analogy to football (not that I understand American football) I have to disagree. War is not about scoring more "points" than the other person in absolute terms, that is correct. However, there are often other abstract considerations.

Perhaps a better example to illustrate the point is Dunkirk. Obviously Germany won that battle because the British withdrew across the channel. But it is precisely because they lost the opportunity to destroy the British army it could be said (and indeed is) that the Briish won that battle in real terms, although it is not the kind of "victory" they really wanted.

However, whether it can be said that McClellan won (because ANV withdrew the next day) or Lee won (because he inflicted more casualties or avoided destruction, as per the Dunkirk case above) there is certainly no case for saying Antietam was a "strategic" victory. With all due respect, this is the only time and place I have ever heard Antietam stated as such (and I have studied warfare for nearly thirty years, not that that makes me an oracle).

A strategic victory is where one army is so crushed that they have suffered a non-reversible affect, and usually it is a great victory. It is a Gettysburg, Atlanta, Waterloo, Trafalgar, Austerlitz, Sedan (both WWII and Franco Prussian), Cannae (although the Carthaginians eventually lost), Stalingrad and Kursk.

Borodino is also a good example. Napoleon won there, but it was not strategic victory (ie implying a "big" victory) because the Russsians merely continued their retreat towards Moscow, and their army was not crushed.

IF McClellan had attacked on the 18th, slaughtered the rebs, forced them up against the Potomac and destroyed their army, then I would have to agree it was a strategic victory. But he did not and Lee was able to withdraw in order at a time of his choosing, which is completely different from being routed from the field.

History is usually a game of opinion. Obviously you have a different opinion to mine, as is your right to do. If you wish to say the North won Antietam, fair enough. However, definitions are also fixed things and the "victory" of Antietam in no way falls within the category of "strategic victory".

To quote Ken Burns, "McClellan could claim a victory". In his famous video series he says nothing more.

And just because Lincoln decided this was the time to release his proclamation doesn't effect this either. If that was the case that would mean what politicians say about a battle effects the very outcome of the bullets and fighting, that what they say changes the very facts on the ground. The timing of his proclamation and results of the fighting on the ground are two very independant things.

Otherwise Stalingrad would have been a German victory (according to Göebbels), Waterloo would have been a minor inconvenience to the French, and Russia didn't really care about continental Europe after Napoleon smashed them at Austerlitz.

This is the last I have to say on this subject. I really have better things to do.

I appreciate your reasoned and courteous response (and we all have better things to do, don't we?), but I think our basic disagreement is that you are defining strategy and tactics differently than I am. Once the armies have reached a battlefield, the results of that battle are tactical. Deciding when and where to fight and how to get the armies there to the disadvantage of the opponent is the subject of strategy. JFC Fuller also includes the concept of "grand strategy", in which the political will of the nation harnesses military and other forces to achieve a larger objective. In United States, Fuller's term is not generally used and conventional strategy usually means that plus grand strategy. Perhaps in this case it would be more correct to say that Antietam was a "grand strategic" victory, but that would not match the convention we are using in Wikipedia ACW battle descriptions and would require more explanations than desirable. However, despite Ken Burns's wishy-washy description, virtually all modern reputable historians on the American Civil War consider Antietam a strategic victory for the Union. You could read any of the References in the article (except Cole, which is focused on one topic) or:

* Eicher, David J., The Longest Night: A Military History of the Civil War, Simon & Schuster, 2001, ISBN 0-684-84944-5.

* Esposito, Vincent J., West Point Atlas of American Wars, Frederick A. Praeger, 1959.

* Foote, Shelby, The Civil War, A Narrative: Fredericksburg to Meridian, Random House, 1958, ISBN 0-394-49517-9.

* Hattaway, Herman, and Jones, Archer, How the North Won: A Military History of the Civil War, University of Illinois Press, 1983, ISBN 0-252-00918-5.

* Rawley, James A., Turning Points of the Civil War, University of Nebraska Press, 1966, ISBN 0-8032-8935-9.

Hal Jespersen 15:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

POV dispute

Most of the POV dispute is talked about above, "Victory for the South".

Having done further research I am even move convinced there is a bias in the reporting of this battle as a Strategic Victory for the North.

Moveover, whenever I state something that the writer doesn't seem to agree with, he merely scotches my opinion. (1) Saying Ken Burns has a "wishwashy" opinion is just outrageous. So the writer's sources are impecable, but mine, perhaps one of the most celebrated American Civil War historians, is merely "wishywashy" and heresay.

(2) Also, instead of actually quoting his sources, he merely gives book references. To be more objective it is far more preferable that he quotes his sources. Otherwise how do we really know these sources say what he says they say?

His assertion that "virtually all modern reputable historians on the American Civil War consider Antietam a strategic victory" is just plain false. Please give specific quotes to back up this opinion.

(3) For my part, to quote Henry Steele Commager, "The Blue and the Gray", Vol. 1, p. 236, "McClellan had won a technical victory at Antietam, and Lincoln took advantage of it to issue his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation."

(4) The writer states that the definitions of "strategic victory" used here correspond with his point of view. However, he does not mention what they are or where we can find them.

Secondly, looking up what victory is, the definition of "strategic victory" in no way corresponds to the actual outcome.

A Tactical victory is where "they held the ground", which the Union did. But they did not "fulfill a set goal".

(5) There is no problem saying one side or the other had a tactical victory, as that is debatable. But neither side achieved a strategic victory.

(6) Considering the Army of the Potomac sat for something like three weeks after the battle and did nothing, that is hardly "leading to a next step in a plan for total victory".

And, as stated above, Lincoln giving a speech doesn't change that. (7) Was McClellan's plan "I'll loose a lot of men, get ground to a halt, so my president can give a speech" (sarcastically)? I think not.

In short, this article is not NPOV, but rather pushing a biased view.

(8) Furthermore, there are certain factual inaccuracies with this article;

One brigade of VI Corps was involved in the fighting, from Smith's division. The author states that Sumner, 2nd Corps Commander, gave Franklin, COmmander of VI Corps, his orders. The idea that one Corps commander ordered another is not plausible. If it did happen, I think the author should quote his source. There is no mention of Rodman's brigade crossing the river at Snavely Ford at about 10am. Without this Burnside would probably have been unable to get across the river. The map is definitely wrong. A confederate unit is shown way out to the North, far further than what their trench line was. If they had been there they would have been wiped out. The confederates did not have their left anchored on the Potomac River, which was at least a mile away. The flank was anchored on a ridge called Hauser Ridge. There was also Nicodemeus Hill which was occupied by two batteries of Confederate artillery. There is no mention of the Union Reserve Cavalry.

POV reply

I have taken the liberty of annotating the previous posting with numbers so that I can address specific points from a wide ranging collection of comments. First, I intended to make this a courteous discussion, as I do in all Wikipedia matters, and if anything I said was taken as unprofessional or intended to cut off discussion, that was not my intent and I apologize for the misunderstanding. My previous posting was relatively short because your comment that preceded it was "This is the last I have to say on this subject. I really have better things to do."

(1) You were the one who produced the quote from Ken Burns and since it did not express a direct point of view, I do not think "wishy-washy" is out of line. As you said:

To quote Ken Burns, "McClellan could claim a victory". In his famous video series he says nothing more.

He could have made a more direct statement if he chose, such as "McClellan was victorious" or "despite McClellan's claim of victory, he did not win", but instead he left his opinion ambiguous. By the way, Burns is recognized as a great documentary film maker, but not as a Civil War historian per se. He structured his film to give quotations and ample credit to the full-time historians from whom he synthesized. Two of those historians, James McPherson and Shelby Foote, are listed in the article references and my previous comments to you, respectively.

(2) The reference for the entry "strategic Union victory" in the battlebox is the National Park Service battle description that is shown in the References section. We have used that NPS summary research uniformly throughout almost all of the American Civil War battle articles for dates, strengths, and outcomes. (About the only deviation of substance that I have seen Wikipedia make away from the NPS has been the use of the battle names "First/Second Bull Run" instead of First/Second Manassas, but that is another subject.) Since that article is available on the Web and is less than a page in length, I did not think it was necessary for me to quote from it to you. Furthermore, from my vantage point (that is admittedly strongly oriented toward Civil War articles), the modus operandi in Wikipedia is to make statements of fact, back up those statements by having a References section, identifying specific quotations or providing footnotes only in those areas where a controversial point cannot be found easily from the references.

(3) Commager's quote is a good one. The "technical victory" refers to the inconclusive nature of the battle itself, which was ended by Lee's withdrawal, making him "technically" the loser. Then he makes reference to the Emancipation Proclamation, which is in the article and which I have discussed with you in this Talk page. The proclamation was not merely an announcement by Lincoln, it was a strategically important event in the war. Any hope that the Confederacy had that they would be recognized by the governments in Europe were dashed after Lincoln's announcement.

(4) I informally defined the difference between tactics and strategy in the very paragraph you cite and referred you to JFC Fuller as a source. (And I'm a little puzzled why you continue to refer to me as "the writer" when I clearly identify myself by name in my postings.) By the way, Wikipedia's definition of military strategy matches with mine: "Military strategy deals with the planning and conduct of campaigns, the movement and disposition of forces, and the deception of the enemy."

(5) Let me restate and elaborate on the reasons it was a strategic victory (which I honestly thought was clear enough from the article and from the other articles linked to it, but perhaps more of this rationale needs to be in the article if there are others who share your point of view):

Lee's strategy in the fall of 1862 was to capitalize on the momentum from his Northern Virginia Campaign (second Manassas) and invade the North in the Maryland Campaign. His strategic objectives were to cause enough trouble on Northern soil that public opinion would force the Union government into peace talks, to reprovision his army from northern farmland, and to recruit soldiers for the Confederacy in Maryland. Although Lee did not say so, Jefferson Davis believed there was a possibility that a successful campaign of this type would be the final justification for European governments to recognize the Confederacy and come to its aid. This strategy failed, with a minor exception of Army reprovisioning. The outcome of the battle of Antietam, which itself was tactically inconclusive, caused the failure of the Maryland campaign. By defeating Lee's strategic objective, the Union achieved a strategic victory.
As I have stated before, the announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation, a direct result of the battle, was of enormous strategic significance to the outcome of the war, much more than simply a "speech" by Lincoln. Although there are many arguments about its practical, short-term effects on slavery in United States, it essentially announced that the termination of slavery was an implicit outcome of a Union victory, which made recognition of the Confederacy by the anti-slavery European powers virtually impossible. It is for this reason that historian James M. McPherson (author of the Pulitzer prize-winning Battle Cry of Freedom and also the Antietam book in the References) describes the battle of Antietam as the turning point of the Civil War.

(6) I have no idea where that quotation came from. It is not in the article.

(7) No, that obviously was not McClellan's plan. He hoped to destroy Lee's army and I do not know whether he was even aware of the Emancipation Proclamation. He did not destroy the army, which is why the battle is considered a draw or inconclusive, but he did defeat the strategic campaign that the army attempted.

(8) Regarding any factual inaccuracies, the Wikipedia process is that you should correct them in the article and if the consensus of the community believes you are correct, those changes will stand. If you are dissatisfied with the map, you can substitute a better map, or, if you wish, you can sketch out changes and send them to me and I will update the map. (If you go to my User page, you will see links to the source files used for these maps, so you could theoretically do the modifications yourself, but I am always willing to discuss and implement reasonable changes. I am quite aware that this is a simplistic map as it stands today.)

One final comment in a very lengthy post: I am going to remove the POV warning you placed into the article. The point of view that Antietam was not a strategic Union victory is outside of the mainstream of modern American historical scholarship. I believe the burden is on you to provide historical references to contradict it, since the article already provides references that support it. Hal Jespersen 19:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. You have no right to remove it. All you have said above is you are right and I am wrong. No way, bucko. This is a wicki, not your private soap box.

If you are serious, please give specific quotations regarding your sources. Because you are flatly wrong to say that most "reputable" historians think like you. Please back it up. I have backed up my point of view. How about you do the same rather than just quoting a small library to go read.

In what way have you backed up your POV other than explaining your reasoning, which is what I did except that I also have the references in the article supporting my view and you don't? I offered other references and Wikipedia links for your personal use to understand the context. The NPS reference alone is enough to justify this aspect of the contents of the article. I do not intend to type in quotations. If you have references that dispute any of the listed references, bring them forward. Otherwise, you are the one employing POV, not I. Hal Jespersen 21:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I went to the effort of looking in my libary and quoting three reputable historians who, according to you, don't know what they are talking about. Giving me a book to go read is ridiculous. How about you go read in your library, find the quotations that you feel back you up, and you put them here. That is a start.

Refusing to do that is hardly backing up your point of view.

As for asking "how have I backed up my point of view", well seriously. Ken Burns, David Phillips, Henry Steele Commager. Plus looking at the exact definitions of what a strategic victory is according to Wikipedia then comparing them to the events. Comparing the battle with other battles. For you to say "how have you backed up your opinion" enters the twilight zone where words have no meaning.

All you have done to date is repeat yourself. As for me being biased, that is ludicrous because I have shown that my opinion is held by other well known historians. You have written them off by saying things like "they are wishy washy", which is just incredible considering Ken Burns took twenty years to make his series. You'd think he would know more than either you or I.

You have replied with generalisations. IF you can't quote your sources then they are, ipso facto, bogus. So there.

Look, I really don't like this much at all. But I just take exception to the word "strategic" used. Call it whatever else you like. So, in an attempt at bonhomie, I have had yet another crack to come up with something that we are both happy with. Please have a look and respond.

Neither of the two quotes you actually presented backed your claim. Neither said anything about the strategic result. You also named David Phillips, whose only book I can find on Amazon was one about maps, so I have no idea what you think his view is.

I have no criticism of Burns' work, merely pointing out that that quote you presented expresses no direct opinion; it could be interpreted in a variety of ways. He worked on the series for 6 years, by the way.

OK, Here are two quotes that I will take the time to type for you:

NPS (first Ref in article): "Result(s): Inconclusive (Union strategic victory.)" And here's what the NPS website for the Antietam NMP says:

The battle also became a turning point, an engagement that changed the entire course of the Civil War. Antietam not only halted Lee's bold invasion of the North (see Why Lee Invaded Maryland) but thwarted his efforts to force Lincoln to sue for peace. It also provided Lincoln with the victory he needed to announce the abolition of slavery in the South. And with that proclamation of Emancipation, Lincoln was able to broaden the base of the war and may have prevented England and France from lending support to a country that engaged in human bondage. The battle sealed the fate of the Confederacy.

McPherson (third):

The victory at Antietam could have been more decisive. The same was true of two lesser victories that followed at Corinth and Perryville. But Union armies had stymied the supreme Confederate efforts. Foreign powers backed away from intervention and recognition, and never again came so close to considering them. Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation. Northern voters chastised but did not overthrow the Republican party, which forged ahead with its program to preserve the Union and give it a new birth of freedom. Here indeed was a pivotal moment.

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.
Contemporaries recognized Antietam as the preeminent turning point of the war. Jefferson Davis was depressed by the outcome there because the Confederacy had put forth its maximum effort and failed. Two of the war's best corps commanders, who fought each other at Antietam (and several other battlefields), Winfield Scott Hancock for the Union and James Longstreet for the Confederacy, made the same point. In 1865 Hancock looked back on the past four years and concluded that “the battle of Antietam was the heaviest disappointment the rebels had met with. They then felt certain of success and felt that they should carry the war so far into the Northern states that the recognition of the Confederacy would have been a necessity.” And twenty years after the war, Longstreet wrote simply: “At Sharpsburg was sprung the keystone of the arch upon which the Confederate cause rested.” Only with the collapse of that arch could the future of the United States as one nation, indivisible and free, be assured.

I don't have the Sears book handy, but the sentiment is similar. Hal Jespersen 21:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I see your point of view. I fully appreciate that there were serious consequences for the South after the battle. That of, their attempt to invade the North was stopped. No argument there. And the consequences for the South being stopped were bad and meant they were going be on the back foot for the rest of the war and eventually go down (although we will never know what might have been if Lee hadn't butchered his own army at Gettysburg, or if Jackson hadn't taken a bullet at Chancellorsville, or AS Johnston at Shiloh). And this also gave the impetus for the Europeans to leave well alone. Also no argument there.

However, it still seems to me, and even by some of the things you have said, it was stopped by a draw rather than a resounding victory by the North.

Think about it this way. What would have been the consequences for the South if they had been mashed at Antietam, if McLellan got all his Corps together, including VI, V and the cav, and threw them all at the Confeds at once. Ouch. Game over (and it was this fact that got him sacked). THEN the consequences of a true strategic victory of this nature would have been a thousand times worse for the South. The war would have finished then and there.

And that is why I take exception to the wording of "strategic" victory. In military parlance, it conveys a completely different meaning.

I understand your point (and appreciate the courteous manner in which you just presented it). I believe you are assigning a more overarching meaning to the word 'strategic' than is warranted. It's as if there can only be one single strategic point in a war, the one in which the entire war is won or lost. (That is more related to the term turning point, which is an article you might also wish to comment on.) We are using a definition of strategy that is not so specific. The strategist does "planning and conduct of campaigns, the movement and disposition of forces, and the deception of the enemy," which is one level above the tactician, who fights a particular battle. This Wikipedia definition is a pretty standard one that will be recognized by modern military guys as well as historians/theoreticians like Clausewitz and Fuller. So there can be multiple strategies in a war, such as within theaters or seasons, of which we hope most will lead to eventual total victory. I would assert that all of the following battles represented strategic victories because they were the centerpieces that decided strategic campaigns: Seven Days (for Lee); Fredericksburg (Lee); Chancellorsville (Lee); Vicksburg (Grant); Gettysburg (Meade); Chattanooga (Grant); Atlanta (Sherman). These may seem more obvious because there were clear tactical winners in each, but it isn't conceptionally different. Lee's strategic objectives for the campaign were thwarted at Antietam, whether McClellan destroyed him or not.

In the case of Antietam, there also happened to be a Union victory in terms of grand strategy. That is what the McPherson quote is addressing--its importance across the multiple theaters of war and in the spheres of public morale, stability of the Northern government, and in the diplomatic realm. Hal Jespersen 00:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Nicely stated all along, Hal. For (6), above, your friend is referring to the Wikipedia dismabiguation page for victory. Under the section on Metaphoric uses of the term, it identifies

Strategic Victory, fulfilling a set goal, or criteria for success, leading to a next step in a plan for total victory.

This is, of course, not the military definition of a strategic victory, but rather the way in which a business person might use the term. Everything I've ever read on Sharpsburg/Antietam contains agreement among historians (as odd as that is) that it was, in fact, a Strategic Victory despite being a Tactical Draw or a lost opportunity.

I would also like to chime in with agreement that while Ken Burns is wonderful documentarian, without whom many people wouldn't know in which century the American Civil War occurred, he is no historian and anyone quoting Burns himself (and implying meanings not there) is making an unwise choice. Heck, Shelby Foote was often wrong (despite writing incredibly well and having a speaking voice I could listen to every night over a glass of scotch.) --Habap 15:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to add a small comment to this. I live in Sharpsburg, I work for the Battlefield, and I know many Civil War historians personally. Reading this alternative POV on a Confederate victory is something I've never heard before. Ever. I don't know a single person that would support this position.

QED 128.54.152.174 06:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't more Americans die on September 8, 1900?

While most people claim that more Americans died on Sept. 17, 1962 than any other single day in our history, isn't it really true that September 8, 1900 holds the record? According to the figures given: 2,108 Union soldiers died and 1,546 Confederate soldiers died. This adds up to a total of 3,654 people killed. On September 8, 1900; between 6,000 and 12,000 people died when the Galveston, Texas hurricane struck land. 8,000 is the number usually quoted. It sure seems to me that September 8, 1900 holds the record as the one day total for most Americans killed.204.80.61.10 20:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk P.S. Please move this paragraph under "POV reply" where it belongs.

Interesting question. Do you know for certain how mnay of the deaths in Galveston happened in that one day, vs., say, after midnight or over the next few days? It matters because the claim is that it is a single-day loss at Antietam. Antietam was only the fifth bloodiest battle of the war, but #1-4 happened over multiple days. Hal Jespersen 22:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Antietam is recognized as the bloodiest day in American military history in terms of total number of casualties (including wounded, missing and captured). I have not seen comparisons with non-military losses, although early on, September 11th was being compared with Antietam in terms of those killed in a single day (casualty figures dropped from sky-high early estimates that placed it above Antietam. Scott Mingus 02:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand the statement. Since the Confederates at the time of death were indeed not americans. So only the Northern deaths should be considered American deaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.94.82 (talk) 12:56, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Overview Image

The overview of the battle of anteitam image is down. Is a new one needed, or is the image referanced to incorrectly?

Looks OK to me at the current time. Hal Jespersen 19:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

coordinates

I trimmed down the coordinates accuracy. With so many digits of precission, it meant that the battle was located within 1/1000s of centimeter, which is misleading, you cannot say "the battle happened on this centimeter but not on the next one". -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 18:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I got those coordinates from mappoint.msn.com and didn't bother to trim them because that was extra work. (You wouldn't think so, but you need to verify where a smaller coordinate pair takes you in a few online services, adding five or six minutes to the task.) Since 99.99% of average readers will never look at the coordinates hidden inside the External link macro, and since the online services display the same size of map regardless of the precision, I didn't think it was a problem. But if you'd like to do the trimming and verifying that you continue to point to the same place, go for it. Hal Jespersen 19:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Another POV comment from above

To those that believe Antietam to be a Confederate tactical and strategic victory -- if your standards were universally applied as you have demonstrated them, Chickamauga would have been a Confederate defeat, and I very much doubt you could find a reputable historian to take the stance in reference to the fighting on the two days (Sept 19-20 1863) -- Iol 00:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

I have started an expansion of the article that may last about a week, although I hope to finish sooner. I will be adding a lot more detail on the fighting and have four new maps in the works. Although this has been a relatively quiet article when it comes to recent vandalism and tweaking, it would be helpful to me if you could hold off on edits while I shovel my stuff in, so I don't have to track changes. Thanks. Hal Jespersen 00:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A good part of the work is done. Only Mid-Day and Afternoon sections need completion. I am considering expanding the Union order of battle to include brigades, but I haven't figured out a good format just yet. Hal Jespersen 19:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's done. Whew. Hal Jespersen 21:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Corps versus wings

The formal designation as First and Second Army Corps did not come until after the Battle of Antietam. During the Maryland Campaign, the units were officially "Longstreet's Right Wing" and "Jackson's Left Wing." Scott Mingus 21:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll figure out a way to footnote that when I do another update. All of the refs in the article refer to "Longstreet's Corps", so it seems to be the popular way of speaking in hindsight, similar to the way people say the Army of the Tennessee fought at Shiloh. The official designation of First Corps was actually on Nov. 6. Hal Jespersen 02:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Afternoon section

Hal, since the afternoon section is quite lengthy (and primarily due to the fact that a significant portion of the attack on the Lower Bridge occurred in the morning), why not break the section into a separate Burnside's Bridge section and an afternoon section that focuses on the events after IX Corps crossed the bridge? Also, you may want to add a little more on the demonstration by the Regulars in front of Cemetery Hill. Some scholars have remarked (led by Ted Alexander) that the passive advance in this sector squandered a good opportunity to split Lee's army. Just some thoughts - no action required if you are satisfied with the article as is. Scott Mingus 12:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The battle is traditionally described in three sections. I suppose it could be Left/Center/Right (or reverse from the Northern view) or North/Center/South or I-XII/II/IX if you have concerns about the current time division, which I admit is slightly inaccurate. As to the Regulars, add in what you'd like, keeping up the citations, pls. Hal Jespersen 21:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Hal! You are quite correct that the battle is described in three sections. I don't have a problem with the way it's broken out, as Burnside did take the bridge in the afternoon. Much of the action paralleled the attack on the Sunken Road. I will write a little more on the Regulars - just finished a wargaming article on this action, so I have some useful references when I get back home. Nice job, by the way on the rewrite - very nice indeed. Scott Mingus 00:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I was disapointed not to see a Battle of Antietam in Popular Culture section. I'm sure there are plenty of novels and films that could be mentioned. Notably it forms the basis for Harry Turtledove's Timeline-191 series of alternate history novels. Eluchil404 02:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you are disappointed, but it's because the people who have edited the page are more interested in history than in trivia. And it's a bit jarring to read about the bloodiest day in American military history and then jump into lists of pulp fiction and Simpsons episodes with peripheral connections. Hal Jespersen 13:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't find it jarring to see a small section about war movies in an article about a battle. But de gustibus non disputandum. My comment was not meant as a criticism of what is a well written article as far as it goes, but merely to suggest another area that could be covered. Eluchil404 17:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, and serious war movies (Glory?) or novels (Red Badge of Courage? -- not for this battle anyway), which purport to illuminate real events, would not be too much out of context, but ponderous alternate history series and all the other comic-book/cartoon/rock-song detritus that people try to cram into Wikipedia history articles are distracting and non-encyclopedic. IMHO. Hal Jespersen 21:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Opposing forces

Since there is now a detailed separate order of battle for Antietam at the regimental level, should thebrigade level list in the article be pared back or elimianted, with a reference to the actual OOB? IMHO, the list of brigade commanders (which predated the OOB articles) should now be trimmed. Scott Mingus 17:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to leave it. My style in writing these longer battle articles is to ID all the big generals and their relationships in this way in the article itself. Without it, the subsequent text would need to change, since I don't expect many people will ever look at the OOB subarticles. And I don't want them to have to have two articles open to understand the battle. Hal Jespersen 02:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough! This makes sense. Scott Mingus 21:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

GA review

This was a very thorough and well-written article. I will pass it for GA when one tiny thing has been mended: Like all other quotations, those in boxes should have inline citations.

Fixed. Another editor had extracted those quotes from footnoted paragraphs without copying the appropriate footnotes. Hal Jespersen 19:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are still quotations that need citations - the two boxes in the "Aftermath" sections. Awadewit | talk 21:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of those are preceded by a colon that has a footnote attached; those are the citations. Hal Jespersen 22:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That is confusing, especially since the notes don't say "Quoted in" or "Qtd. in". I will pass the article but that should be made clearer. Awadewit | talk 05:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I am at a loss to see where confusion could result. In both cases, the author and book title are listed in the boxes. The footnotes are in the preceding sentence, clearly indicating the source of the two opinions: "Historian Stephen Sears agrees.[49]", "Historian James M. McPherson summed up the importance of Antietam in his Crossroads of Freedom:[51]" If I added footnotes to the boxes, which I could do, they would only be duplications of the preceding footnotes. Hal Jespersen 15:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are my suggestions for improving the article beyond GA:

Thank you for your very detailed review. Although I am the principal author of the article, I was not the one who nominated it for review. I have no plans to ask for further reviews, but I will take your suggestions under consideration for future editing of this and other articles. Hal Jespersen 19:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The lead may be a bit too specific. This page will probably attract readers unfamiliar with the Civil War (watchers of Ken Burns and the like) and the level of detail regarding the battle might be a bit confusing for someone who is not a Civil War buff.

Content:

This page has a lot of detail; I think that removing some of it might be a good idea. It is hard to read the entire page and get an idea of the "Battle of Antietam" in one sitting. (I know we all love our topics and want the pages to have a lot of detail, but sometimes it has to be sacrificed for the sake of readability. Having someone unfamiliar with the Civil War read this and let you know when they are drifting might be a good idea.)
I wonder if it is possible to describe the battles more; I don't mean the commanders and units, but the actual conditions of battle. The quotation from Cook in the box about the Cornfield is good, but I think there should be many more of these (not in boxes, but in the description of the battle). Such quotations or descriptions would humanize the battle.
Is the list of "Opposing forces" necessary? As a reader, I just wanted to skip right over that. (As a reviewer, I was forced to read through it all.) I see that there has been discussion of this before; the list did not help me keep the battle organized or remember who anyone was. That might just be me, but there it is.
and the weak strategic victory of the Union's Army of the Potomac at Antietam diminished any successes Lee may have had in winning the hearts and minds of the people of Maryland - It is not clear why a "weak strategic victory" would dissuade Marylanders from supporting Lee and the South.
More Americans died on 17 September 1862, than on any other day in the nation's military history, including World War II's D-Day and the terrorist assaults of 11 September 2001. - This is an odd comparison. Those who died on 9/11 were not soldiers engaged in a battle.

Prose:

Carefully look for and eliminate colloquial usage such as "get" or "saving the day".
Although the battle was tactically inconclusive, it had unique significance as enough of a victory to give President Abraham Lincoln the confidence to announce his Emancipation Proclamation. - Emphasize the Proclamation syntactically. In this construction, it is not the subject of the sentence and is relegated to the tail end of the sentence.
While the Cornfield remained mired in a bloody stalemate, Federal advances a few hundred yards to the west were more successful. Brig. Gen. John Gibbon's 4th Brigade of Doubleday's division (recently named the Iron Brigade) advanced down the turnpike, pushing aside Jackson's men. - Don't leave us hanging! Why was it named the "Iron Brigade"? You have to say why in a brief phrase or take that fact out. It is just sitting there.
The first paragraph of the "Mid-day" section needs to more clearly identify confederate and union forces.

Organization:

Some editors do not like long sections (I don't mind), so you might consider breaking up "Morning" and others even more - they are all longer than a screen (at least on my computer).
Although each of the sections begins with a nice suggestion of what is to follow, I still found myself mired in detail sometimes, wondering how each little parry and thrust, as it were, connected to the whole battle. It would probably be a good idea to remind readers of how each mini-battle fits into the big picture. It is hard to keep it all in one's head and if a reader doesn't want all of the detail, they can focus on those statements.

MOS (if you are planning on taking this to FAC):

All words that include an 's (apostrophe "s") that are linked should include the apostrophe "s" inside the link. It is more aesthetic and logical. See this obscure section of the MOS. You might just look over the linking policies in general. Why, for example, is "15 September" repeatedly linked at the beginning of the "Battle" section?
I believe people are usually mentioned by their entire names the first time they enter an article and then by their last names only later in the article (except if they share a name (e.g. Hill) or for some other odd exception). I don't think that this rule is quite followed in the article.
The "External links" can be pruned.
I am loath to mention this, but since I just had someone oppose an FAC I submitted based on the dashes and the date styles in the article, I would suggest a detailed review of the MOS before proceeding to FAC to avoid that kind of thing. I'm sure that I saw hyphens were there should be n-dashes! The sky is falling.

Please let me know if you need a comment clarified. Awadewit | talk 05:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. Based on my review, I believe the article should continue to remain a GA. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 00:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of Vandalism

Could the vandalism of this article be extended for a while longer. I like this article and it is fine. If it needs to be edited a more experianced and longer lasting wikipedian will be able to do it after going over the talk page. I dont like the vandals and this is one of the best ways to stop them.

--David171 (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean protection of the article? Jmlk 1 7 23:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ya! you got it! how do u request the protection to be LENGTHENED? on the talk page? See ive had this account for a year or two but i am not an avid wikipedian. can u explain a bit? David171 (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing David... head on over to rfpp. Jmlk 1 7 21:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)