With respect, it's so considered in every historical review of the war, its battles, and Antietam itself that I've read. From the Confederate Military History, a typical example:Originally posted by HighLordDave
I would hardly call Antietam a significant victory (the Confederates carried the field, but stopped their invasion of Maryland);
"The battles and marches of the preceding months had greatly depleted Lee's army, and his wounded, footsore, and straggling men were strung all along through Virginia from Richmond to the Potomac, so that he could bring but 35,000 wearied, half-clad and half-starved men into the battle of Sharpsburg; against these, McClellan had hurled 60,000 well-equipped, well-fed and well-cared-for men, while 27,000 more were held in full view and could have been thrown into the contest. Four of his corps were not only routed, but scattered; and he could not collect them to renew the battle."
Jubal Early dissented, but he had a well-deserved reputation as a man who refused to admit defeat for himself or his cause under any circumstances, and would go to extraordinary lengths to circumvent the facts on paper and in the field. No, Antietam struck at two things the South could not afford to lose: the momentum, and soldiers. It was the first battle that began to cripple the South in both these strategic fashions, IMO.
The formal Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1 January 1863 after the Union debacle at Fredericksburg and, in my opinion, was a maneuver of desperation to keep the British from coming to the aid of the Confederacy. By elevating the war from a civil war to a moral imperative to eliminate slavery, Lincoln knew the British (who completed a gradual and compensated program of abolition in 1825) would not openly support the Rebellion with military aid....
But this is what I said, above.
His position was made even worse by people who felt betrayed by the Emancipation Proclamation; the were in it to save the Union, not free slaves. Without the staunch grass-roots support of the abolitionist movement (secured through the Emanicpation Proclamation), he would have been ousted from office in the middle of the war.
Again, I wrote as much. Lincoln couldn't rely upon the Copperheads (peace Democrats) for the vote, not with McClellan running as a Democrat, while the aboltionists were already putting forth several candidates as Lincoln's successor. Issuing the EP was a very canny move on the President's part, since it squelched abolitionist dissension for a time. I don't doubt it was also a moral move, though Lincoln was neither a member of, nor believer in any established church. But his timing was that of a politican honed in the rough political arena of the Midwest.
Dubya has shown that he is weak on domestic issues and has expended a lot of political capital on his tax "refund", withdrawing from the ABM treaty and building that ridiculous ballistic missile shield (read: sinecure for his defense-industry buddies). If the economy doesn't turn around, he'll be in trouble come November. I think that this latest round of announcements by government officials about a imminent (but unforseen) terrorist attack is a two fold strategy: first, to warn us that someone, someday, somewhere will kill more Americans on US soil, and second, to keep the "war" on terrorism on the front burner and not have to talk about issues on which the president is weak. Dubya's strength right now is the"war" on terrorism, but on everything else he is at best mediocre and at worst a liability for the Republicans.
It is instructive to realize that Dubyah has not been requested to campaign in support of nearly all Congressional and gubenatorial Republicans this year. When a president is viewed as popular, typically they stump for the party; but Bush's popularity is a one-note kind, and he has made many enemies in the Republican ranks with high-pressure tactics, public slights, and a series of policies that sacrifice the mid- and longterm for shortterm goals (like the steel and wood tarriffs). Most Republicans I've seen and heard campaigning aren't even mentioning him; a clear indicator of their desire to distance themselves from somebody whose naivety about the world and its ways surpasseth even that of Jimmy Carter in the 1980s.
