The Effect of the Battle at Antietam
The effects of the bloodiest battle in American military history spread all over the world; however, the resulting Emancipation Proclamation, in particular, had an enormous impact on Britain’s decision to not recognize the Confederacy as a nation. During a low point for the Union, the birth of this pivotal piece of anti-slavery legislation from the Battle at Antietam helped deter Britain from intervening. The Battle at Antietam and the resulting Proclamation were colossal victories for the Union as they discouraged the intervention of the British, preventing potential war between the United States and Great Britain.
In 1862, during the time of the Battle at Antietam, the British Cabinet was immensely divided. Half wanted to stay neutral, while half were considering intervention. According to Kinley Brauer, Lord Palmerston, the British Prime Minister, and Lord John Russell, Great Britain’s Foreign Secretary proposed European aid to America in the fall of 1862. They eventually decided after three months to maintain “cautious neutrality.” To gain support for mediation, Palmerston had to be able to convince the Cabinet the North would not mind receiving British intervention (Brauer). British leaders thought that the North could not dominate the South militarily but rather drag the war out long enough for the South to “sue for peace.” This, of course, was not the case, as the victory at Antietam convinced Lord Palmerston that the South would not be winning the Civil War (Brauer). Because of the unexpected Union victory at Antietam, intervention became more and more unlikely. According to Brauer’s article, the British saw that by August of 1862 that a “stalemate had been reached.” The Britis...
... middle of paper ...
...t the war on its own terms. Because of the victory at Antietam and the resulting Emancipation Proclamation, Britain decided to remain neutral and avoid going to war with the Union by recognizing and possibly aiding the Confederacy.
Works Cited
Brauer, Kinley J. “British Mediation and the American Civil War: A Reconsideration.” The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Feb., 1972). JSTOR. Web. 25 Aug. 2010
McPherson, James M. Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam. New York: Oxford, 2002. Print.
Seward, William H. Reminiscences of a War-Time Statesman and Diplomat. New York and London: The Knickerbocker Press, 1916. Print.
United States. Papers Relating To Foreign Affairs. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1962. Print.
Wright, John D. The Oxford Dictionary of Civil War Quotations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print.
Industrially the South couldn't keep up in output of weapons, ammunition and other supplies. That is one of the main reasons the South looked overseas for help. Jefferson Davis knew that the South was at a disadvantage so he looked to England and France. By the end of the war, the South had, more or less, plenty of weaponry still, but it just didn't have enough men to use the guns. By getting either England or France on the Confederate side, supplies would have been more plentiful and also it would have inevitably ended up doing great damage economically to England's maritime trade. However, the fact remained that foreign recognition was denied to the Confederacy in all its attempts.
The Battle of Antietam also known as the Battle of Sharpsburg was fought in one day on September 17, 1862 that is considered the bloodiest single day battle in American history. George McClellan led the Union against the Confederates which was led by Robert E. Lee in this battle. There are 3 phases in this battle at they are all in different locations. The first phase in located in Miller's cornfield. This was no longer a cornfield after it started, you couldn't walk across the field without stepping on a body.
Marrin, Albert. Unconditional Surrender: U.S. Grant and the Civil War. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994. Print.
...ces. The weary Confederate forces were overcome and Van Dorn ordered a withdrawal. The battle had been won by the Union (Battle). Van Dorn went across the Mississippi, abandoning all of the operations west of on the western side of it. Therefore, the Union controlled all of the area to the west of the Mississippi. The Union kept control of this area for 2 more years before there was any dispute. By controlling one whole front of the war, the Union's victory was much easier and more probable than before.
Turner, Thomas R. 101 Things You Didn’t Know about the Civil War. Avon: Adams, 2007.
Heidler, David Stephen, and Jeanne T. Heidler, eds. Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: a
McPherson, James M.; The Atlas of the Civil War. Macmillan: 15 Columbus Circle New York, NY. 1994.
A Southern refugee once reflected, and referred to the Army of the Potomac as the “greatest army in the planet.” Although this is a clear exaggeration, from a Southern perspective following the Battle of Antietam, this was not too far off. Relative to the Army of Northern Virginia, the Federal army was vastly larger, in better spirits, and strategically in better positions. To direct this army of great potential, President Lincoln appointed the reluctant Major General Ambrose Everett Burnside. Almost immediately after receiving command, Burnside adopted a plan; the objective was Richmond. He was convinced that a victory at Richmond would cripple the Confederate’s ability to carry on; whether this would have been true is debatable. What is not arguable however, is Burnside’s neglect of a small city by the name of Fredericksburg, which lied directly in his path. He inherited every advantage a military leader of the time could hope for; however, every one of these advantages was dissolved with his disregard of mission command. The Army of the Potomac’s loss at the Battle of Fredericksburg was a direct result of General Burnside’s failure at conducting the commander’s activities of understanding, describing, leading, and assessing.
...iduals plotting conspiracy and selling out their promises for a considerable length of time before 1860, and that they were not going to stop short of their objectives. The main thing that might have avoided war might be the acknowledgement of bondage by the United States or the surrender of the United States of every last one of states and regions it held that called itself the Confederacy. Since that might not have finished subjugation, then the response is that there was no elective however to have a clash, a war. Subjugation was the issue, it was the reason. It was an ascertained arrangement by the individuals who decided to ensure servitude by selling out their kinsmen and turning rebellious--to secure subjugation, and not a legendary thought of "state's rights" on the grounds that the main right they thought about was the right to subjugate an alternate race.
In the middle of the nineteenth century bloody battles broke out all over the United States, pitting brother against brother and father against son. The causes of this war were the issues of slavery and state’s rights; but most importantly, the catalyst for the Civil War was the tension in the air cause by the dissention of the South from the North. Dissention is a radically different concept than the idea of disagreement. Had the Northern and Southern states merely disagreed about slavery and states’ rights issues, the Civil War would only be a wisp of what could have been. Disagreement leads to arguments while dissent leads to quarrels, and the distinction Boorstin makes between the two is entirely accurate.
...arliament, caused the colonies to become more and more independent throughout the eighteenth century. Yet the colonists wanted to exhaust every remedy to their grievances before resorting to war. Declaring independence was never going to be a swift process, as each colony progressed at a different rate. Nonetheless, forming a colonial army at the same time as attempting to negotiate peaceful conciliation with the British was not at first a popular decision, yet to many the benefits outweighed the possible losses. In the end, the rejection of the Olive branch represented a watershed in the evolution of a national identity that was completely independent of a British identity, for its dismissal stiffened the patriots’ resolve toward independence and paved the way for the penning of a much more famous letter to the king, the Declaration of Independence.
Aamodt, Terrie D., Righteous Armies, Holy Causes: Apocalyptic Imagery and the Civil War. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2002.
Perman Michael, Amy Murrell Taylor. Major Problems in the Civil War and Reconstruction. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2011.
...e? Through the armed rebellion of its American residents against the Mexican authorities. Returning to the Civil War, the case can be made that secession in and of itself was not a guaranteed prelude to war. Yet the swift escalation of tensions into military action, as occurred in 1861 at Fort Sumter, suggests that Americans—Northerners and Southerners—were ready for a fight. As American history shows, fighting was something they knew something about.
The Civil War was undoubtedly the bloodiest war in American history. However, debate still surrounds the start of the war. There are historians who argue the war was a result of a “blundering generation”, or those (typically) in Congress during the 1850’s who exaggerated the issues and were both too loud and too extreme. These historians seem to believe the war was avoidable, and was an extreme measure to a compromisable conflict. Others, however, consider the war to be result of an irrepressible conflict, or an unavoidable event that was inevitable all along. Although there may be components of both the “irrepressible conflict” and “blundering generation” theories, there is one that provides the most logical answer to the start of the Civil