Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam

Pivotal Moments in American History

by James M. McPherson

A great book about the Civil War battle at Antietam. It goes into great detail about this one specific battle and how it influenced the direction of the war. Contains minimal information about the rest of the Civil war. It focuses almost entirely on this particular battle.

Genres: History, Civil War, Nonfiction, American Civil War, American History, Military History, War

Paperback

First published January 1, 2002

About the author

James M. McPherson, Ph.D. (Johns Hopkins University, 1963; B.A., Gustavus Adolphus College (St. Peter, Minnesota), 1958) is an American Civil War historian, and the George Henry Davis '86 Professor Emeritus of United States History at Princeton University. He received the Pulitzer Prize for Battle Cry of Freedom, his most famous book. He was the president of the American Historical Association in 2003, and is a member of the editorial board of Encyclopædia Britannica.

Reviews

[Paul Haspel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Crossing the Potomac River into Maryland, Robert E. Lee might well have thought of Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon – passing a point of no return. As Caesar knew that taking his army into Italy proper would mark a new phase in Rome’s civil war, so Lee knew that, leading his Confederate Army of Northern Virginia onto Union soil, he could no longer claim to be simply defending his country from invasion: he was now an invader himself. The Maryland Campaign that had its bloody climax at the Battle of Antietam was truly one of the pivotal moments not just of Civil War history, but of American history generally – and James McPherson tells the story well and conveys its significance skillfully in Antietam: Crossroads of Freedom.

Long before publishing Antietam: Crossroads of Freedom in 2002, McPherson, of Princeton University, had long since established himself as the pre-eminent Civil War historian of this generation. His 1988 book Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, a Pulitzer Prize winner and bestseller, was quickly embraced as the single-volume history of the Civil War. McPherson, whose earlier books included several works on African Americans’ contributions to the Union cause, also won praise for the manner in which he has consistently called attention to slavery as the true cause of the Civil War; his work provides a welcome anodyne to “Lost Cause” and neo-Confederate approaches to the war and its legacy.

In an introductory essay titled “Death in September,” McPherson provides a grim reminder of just how bloody a day Antietam was: “The 6,300 to 6,500 Union and Confederate soldiers killed and mortally wounded near the Maryland village of Sharpsburg on September 17, 1862, were more than twice the number of fatalities suffered in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001” (p. 3). After citing the testimony of a number of veterans who attest that they lived through many battles but never experienced anything quite like Antietam, McPherson proceeds to a quick and succinct consideration of the Maryland Campaign and the Battle of Antietam.

Doing so, however, requires a bit of backstory. Any discussion of this phase of Civil War history will inevitably involve attention to the mercurial character of Union General George B. McClellan. He was a great organizer – after the disastrous Union defeat at the July 1861 Battle of Bull Run or Battle of Manassas, he had re-formed the defeated Union forces as the Army of the Potomac, and had restored their morale in the process – but he seemed singularly irresolute in his actual exercise of battlefield command. He could forge the sword, but he seemed unable to wield it.

McClellan was also afflicted with an unfortunate tendency to step outside his military responsibilities and dabble in politics; he despised President Abraham Lincoln, and expressed freely his opinion that Union victory in the Civil War should leave the institution of slavery untouched. Moreover, McClellan sought to promote officers he saw as friends, and to act against officers that he thought might favor Lincoln and/or abolition.

Under these circumstances, it is no wonder that, while the Army of the Potomac suffered one reverse after another in the Seven Days’ battles around Richmond, “the poison” of party politics and army politics “had seeped deeper into the Army of the Potomac” (p. 53). President Lincoln, meanwhile, had drafted a preliminary proclamation emancipating all enslaved people in areas then in rebellion against the United States of America; but he knew that he could not issue the proclamation unless and until McClellan’s army gained some sort of victory over Lee’s army.

Meanwhile, none of the difficulties of a personality like McClellan’s marred the relationship between Robert E. Lee and his president, Jefferson Davis. After fighting and defeating the Union army of General John Pope in a second battle at Manassas/Bull Run, Lee outlined to Davis his reasons for a proposed Confederate invasion of Maryland.

The possible benefits of such an invasion, from Lee’s point of view, were many: relieving ravaged Virginia of the pressures of war, while securing fresh supplies from bounteous Maryland; gaining new recruits from Maryland, and possibly encouraging that border state to secede and join the Confederacy; depressing Union morale by taking the war into the North, with possible effects on upcoming congressional elections; gaining, through a victory on Northern soil, European recognition of the Confederacy, and perhaps European intervention on the Confederacy’s behalf.

Davis assented to Lee’s proposal, and the die was cast. McPherson captures well the drama of that moment of invasion orchestrated by Lee:

Great events…awaited the outcome of Lee’s decision to cross the Potomac: victory or defeat; foreign intervention; Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation; Northern elections; the very willingness of the Northern people to keep fighting for the Union….Destiny awaited those tired, ragged, shoeless, hungry but confident Rebel soldiers on the far side of the Potomac as they forded the river singing “Maryland, My Maryland”: the destiny of the Confederacy, of slavery, of the United States itself as one nation, indivisible. (p. 95)

This brief book (just 156 pages, not counting notes, bibliographic essay, and acknowledgements) describes and summarizes the Battle of Antietam well – McClellan’s inefficient deployment of superior forces, Lee’s high-risk gambles in the face of heavy odds – but does not go into extreme detail regarding the tactical elements of the battle. Readers who are in search of exhaustive accounts of tactical decisions, and of the consequences of those decisions at the corps, division, brigade, and regimental level, might do better to seek out works like James Murfin’s The Gleam of Bayonets (1965), or Stephen Sears’s Landscape Turned Red (1983), or John Michael Priest’s Antietam: The Soldiers’ Battle (1989).

McPherson’s core interest, rather, is in how Antietam was, in his reading, The Battle That Changed the Course of the Civil War (the book’s cover subtitle). In his conclusion, McPherson states clearly why he feels that the bloody and incomplete Union victory at Antietam, in terms of its political and diplomatic consequences, was the most crucial single engagement of the Civil War:

The victory at Antietam could have been more decisive….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. (p. 155)

For McPherson, these factors make Antietam more crucial, more decisive, than other vital turning points of the Civil War such as Gettysburg, Vicksburg, and Atlanta. Coming as I do from Maryland, I have always considered Antietam the most important battle of the American Civil War; and it is good to have exalted company like McPherson’s in that regard.

Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam is well-illustrated with photographs and engravings, and the campaign and battle maps are particularly clear and helpful. For the reader who wants a quick, informative introduction to the Maryland Campaign and the Battle of Antietam – one that never loses sight of the vital human-rights issues that underlay the entire Civil War -- Crossroads of Freedom is more than suitable.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent book for someone not familiar with the American Civil War and for anyone wondering about the early ups and downs experienced by the Yanks and Rebels in 1861-1862 up through the battle at Sharpsburg(Confederate)/Antietam(Union). McPherson does not spend a lot of the book on the actual battle but does outline events on the battlefield:

Stark memories of Antietam haunted many for the rest of their days. A private in the 1st Delaware, which suffered 230 casualties in the battle, recalled a Union soldier stumbling around with both eyes shot out, begging someone ‘for the love of God’ to put an end to his misery.” A nearby lieutenant asked him if he really meant what he said. “Oh yes,” the blinded soldier replied. “I cannot possibly live, and my agony is unendurable.” Without another word the lieutenant drew his revolver, “placed it to the victim’s right ear, turned away his head, and pulled the trigger. A half-wheel, a convulsive gasp, and one more unfortunate had passed over to the silent majority. ‘It was better thus,’ said the lieutenant, replacing his pistol and turning toward [me], ‘for the poor fellow could—’ Just then a solid shot took the lieutenant’s head off.””

The shock of such scenes caused psychiatric casualties among even the most hardened and experienced soldiers.

Where McPherson excels is in explaining how Antietam changed the course of the Civil War, the fate of the US and the institution of slavery. The battle could have gone 3 ways: Overwhelming Union victory; strong Confederate victory; or the actual result of a tactical draw on each side but strategic Union victory in stopping the Confederate invasion of Maryland.

McPherson details the course of the Civil War before Antietam/Sharpsburg. After 1st Bull Run, the Union gains a number of victories along the coasts and in the West. The Union thinks it will be a short war and the Confederacy morale is low. McClellan’s failed attempt on Richmond and his withdrawal from the Virginia Peninsula sees the rise of Confederate morale and gloom in the North. A clear Union defeat at 2nd Manassas and Lee’s invasion of the North/Maryland boost the South’s morale and the North sees doom approaching. The recognition of the Confederacy as a new nation by the European powers hangs in the balance. If the Europeans get involved, it will be the end of the US and slavery will continue in the South. One more significant Confederate victory will establish the viability of the South as a new nation in the European political circles:

If the Union wins a great victory, especially if the Army of Northern Virginia is substantially destroyed, the South will likely sue for peace and the US will be reunited. But the Emancipation Proclamation hasn’t been issued and probably wouldn’t be. The US will continue to have slavery in the South for many years as a condition of ending the war. Lincoln and both the War and Peace Democrats in the North would accept such an outcome.

If the South gains a victory, the Europeans will recognize the Confederacy or, at the minimum, demand a six month cessation of hostilities and supervise negotiations between the warring parties. The Democrats would likely take over the Congress in the 1862 elections and end the war. Two nations would now exist in place of the US and slavery will continue in the South.

The actual outcome makes the Europeans back off until the South can prove viability. The Republicans retain control of the Congress in the 1862 elections, continuing the war. Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation immediately after the battle, ensuring slavery will become a main focus of the North’s war goals. Hundreds of thousands of men on both sides will be killed and wounded in 2 ½ more years of war but slavery will end.

McPherson weaves this story throughout his book. Highly recommended, 4 Stars

[robin friedman · Rating 5 out of 5]

A New Birth Of Freedom And Its Cost

On September 17, 1862, the Army of the Potomac commanded by General George B. McClellan met the Army of Northern Virginia commanded by Robert E. Lee in the fields near Sharpsburg, Maryland. The result was the Battle of Antietam, the bloodiest day in American history and a pivotal moment of the Civil War. The battle ended the Confederacy's first invasion of the North and gave President Lincoln the opportunity to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

In his short study, "Crossroads of Freedom" Professor McPherson weaves together many strands in discussing the significance of the battle. First, he places the battle against the backdrop of the prior military course of the war, both in the Eastern and the Western theaters. He points out how Union successes in the early part of 1862 were followed by serious defeats in the Seven Days Battle and Second Manassas with the tide of the war turning to the Confederacy. Although the South would again invade the North culminating in the Battle of Gettysburg, Antietam was a clear check to Southern momentum. It gave the Union the courage, will and political force to fight on.

Second, Professor McPherson emphasizes the role of the European powers -- England and France -- in the Civil War. These nations followed events in America closely and were economically at risk from the loss of Southern cotton for their textile mills. They likely would have recognized the Confederacy if the results of the first invasion of the North had favored the Confederacy.

Third, and probably most importantly to his theme, Professor McPherson discusses the role of Antietam in the changing character of the Civil War. President Lincoln was opposed to slavery, but his initial war aims did not include freeing the slaves. Rather he wished to hold the Union together. As the War continued, Lincoln became convinced of the necessity of issuing an Emancipation Proclamation but believed that he needed a military success to give the Proclamation force and credibility. The victory at Antietam, narrow as it was, and tremendous as was its human cost, gave him that opportunity.

Emancipation was indeed a new birth of freedom. It also, as Professor McPherson points out, changed the character of the War from one with the aim of trying to persuade the South to come back to a state of total War -- which changed the character of a culture and redefined the nature of freedom in the United States.

Professor McPherson's book is part of a series called "Pivotal Moments in American History" whose aim is "to encourage interest in problems of historical contingency." There was a great deal of chance involved in the Battle of Antietam, more so than in most military campaigns. (There were also military blunders on both sides.) During the course of the southern invasion the Union discovered by chance a copy of General Lee's "Special Order No. 179" which had been dropped in a field. Special Order No. 179 detailed Lee's disposition of his troops and gave General McClellan the opportunity to attack in series each detachment of Lee's divided army. This was crucial to the result at Antietam. But McClellan missed the opportunity to win a decisive victory and bring an end to the War. Human error and chance play a great role in human events. But Professor McPherson might have done well to refer to Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address and compared Lincoln's reflections on the role of providence with the blind chance that led to the Union finding of Special Order No. 179.

There is only a short description of the battle of Antietam itself. The focus of the study is putting the Battle in its historical and political context rather than in a detailed analysis of military moves. Nevertheless, I found Professor McPherson's description of the battle (as well as his descriptions of the Seven Days Battle and Second Manassas) easier to follow than more detailed studies I have read. Professor McPherson gives a good annotated bibliography which refers the reader interested in a military study of the battle to more detailed accounts.

This is an excellent study of the Battle of Antietam which places it well in the context of the Civil War and which encourages the reader to reflect on the meaning of the War and of the nature of American freedom.

Robin Friedman

[Dan Lutts · Rating 5 out of 5]

The battle at Antietam was the worst single-day battle ever fought in American history. Over six thousand soldiers were killed and countless others injured. Horses were also killed and injured. The Union victory resulted in Abraham Lincoln delivering the Emancipation Proclamation and also killed the Confederates hopes of having England intervene in the war. If you like books about the Civil War, this one is well worth reading.

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

Earlier in the book, I was tempted to give this 4 stars, but as the book raced (as in whoosh) to an end, I simply felt way too much ground was being covered in too short a space (156 pages, excluding endnotes, etc.). On the good side, Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam is a marvel of economy. McPherson knows his subject inside and out. I've read a great number of books on the War, but McPherson's take is never stale or old, and his abiity to find (for me at least) new letters and quotes from that time, is nothing short of wonderful.

That said, the battle of Antietam only covers about 25 or 30 pages. Instead, McPherson concentrates on creating a context for Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, and by doing so he makes Antietam the most important battle of the War. I'm not sure I buy that. The Southern invasion of Maryland was a long shot anyway, with the Army of Northern Virginia pretty much worn to a frazzle when it crossed the Potomac. A much larger Southern army would invade in 1863 (Gettysburg), and that was a very close thing. In either case, a Southern victory would have rocked the house and complicated things considerably, without necessarily ending in a Southern victory in the War itself. Whatever. I hate getting into what-ifs when it comes to history, but McPherson's connect-the-dots approach invites such a response. There's no denying that the Emancipation Proclamation was a huge event, but it would still have to be fought for on many battlefields yet to come. Circling one battle as THE event that would determine what would follow seems a Burnside's bridge too far.

[Susan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enjoyed this a lot. Had read his main Civil War book but quite a long time ago. Two main thoughts, one controversial and one not. 1. McClellan was a thorn in Lincoln's side with his constant excuses. It to attack or even to move. No wonder his men loved him—he kept them away from the war. 2. In the eyes of contemporaries Lincoln was naive, foolish and not up to guiding his country at war. Now we dote on his every word. My guess that history will treat Obama similarly, recognizing in retrospect how good a president he was.

[Sean Chick · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am a bit divided on this one. McPherson is a solid writer who skillfully imparts the importance of the campaign. My issue is the same I have with many Just Cause narratives: Lincoln is the hero and McClellan is the villain, although here he is a bit more sympathetic than other portrayals. McPherson makes no indication that Lincoln made strategic errors (which he did) or that a "decisive battle" such as Lincoln wanted was a near impossibility during the war. Being fair, Antietam was the exception where a decisive victory like Blenheim or Austerlitz was possible. However, McClellan was in command. As a general, he was brilliant at everything save battle. He could conceive good tactical plans but lacked the guts to stick with it. The book is too short to explain these bitter ironies. Even an additional twenty pages would have gone far. But this is meant as an introductory work, and in that regard it is admirable.

UPDATE: Read this again and came away less impressed and more convinced that McPherson is the epitome of the safe Civil War history, at least in terms of professionals. It is worth noting that the tone is less self-righteous than later works, and I like the images used.

[Jennifer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam: The Battle that Changed the Course of the Civil War explores the first year’s of the war leading up to the battle of Antietam and the effects it had on the nation and the world both psychologically and politically.

Taking from letters and diaries, James McPherson tells the story of Antietam, and the first years of the war, in such a way that at times I could feel my blood pressure rise. The quote that struck me the most was from a soldier describing his experience at the battle of Antietam: “The truth is when bullets are whacking against tree trunks and solid shot are cracking skulls like egg-shells, the consuming passion in the breast of the average man is to get out of the way.”

A good book if you want to know more about the politics and strategy during the first couple of year’s of the American Civil War.

[Dale · Rating 5 out of 5]

Does a brilliant job of looking at the "meaning" of the battle of Antietam

I have nearly 90 books that cover the Civil War on my bookshelf. Most books that cover the Civil War compartmentalize the battles into little chapters with titles like "Chancellorsville", "Antietam" and "Shiloh". The battles are thoroughly covered but the feel for the larger flow of the war is sacrificed.

In Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam 1862 , McPherson dramatically sweeps the reader along and I was left with a renewed sense of amazement and respect for the fact that Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was able to fight, let alone go on the offensive against two seperate armies and fight multiple, large battles from June through September of 1862.

McPherson does an extraordinary job of tying in many of the political and military threads of this war to demonstrate that Antietam was the day that determined the outcome of the war, and not the more popular belief that it was July 4, 1863 with the dual losses for the Confederacy at Vicksburg and Gettysburg...

Read more at: http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.ca/2011/0...

[Jerome Otte · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-written, well-researched and graphic history of the battle of Antietam and its impact (although more focused on the latter)

McPherson covers the battle, its political and diplomatic context, the bleak situation before it took place and how its outcome gave Lincoln the leverage to issue the Emancipation Proclamation and remove McClellan. The narrative is compelling and very readable, although the coverage of the battle itself is very brief, if vivid.

McPherson, however, explains the delay between the discovery of Lee’s orders and McClellan’s marching of his forces as evidence of the general’s caution (even writing that a Confederate commander would have acted more quickly), but does not mention that he ordered movement within hours of discovering the papers (and after checking the information via cavalry) When covering John Pope’s campaign, McPherson writes that “all evidence” indicates that McClellan wanted Pope to fail, although it still seems more likely that McClellan simply thought Pope would be, and deserved to be, defeated.

A strong, concise and nuanced work.

[Samantha · Rating 3 out of 5]

a little over my head at times because it's bursting with military strategy, mcpherson's main point is how the battle of antietam in the fall of 1862 prompted lincoln to follow through with his initial emancipation strategy postulated on september 22, and really, for serious this time, no fucking around, emancipate the slaves come january 1, 1863.

[Daniel Deem · Rating 5 out of 5]

A nice quick read on one of America’s bloodiest and most defining moments. McPherson draws on multiple news sources across the country, north and south, to highlight the way Union and Confederate morale shifted erratically in the months leading up to the battle. Great Britain was anxiously watching, and discussions in parliament of recognizing Confederate legitimacy could have spelled disaster for the Union.

McClellan and Lee are described in striking contrast to each other. McClellan, the “young Napoleon,” plagued by his abundance of caution to overestimate the enemy. Lee, willing to risk it all to bring the war to the North, knowing his own side’s disadvantages in what was becoming a war of attrition. Lee’s decision to invade Maryland was a gamble that didn’t pay off.

Lincoln had been waiting in the wings to issue his Emancipation Proclamation, Union victory at Antietam gave him the perfect opportunity to do just that. Still, Lincoln’s own General McClellan was criticized for not pursuing Lee’s retreating army and was removed from his post. The victory was enough for the British to seriously reconsider recognizing the Confederacy as a legitimate nation, but more importantly it made abolition a legitimate war aim.

McPherson makes a compelling case for the importance of Antietam to our national story. Would the US look the same today if the Confederate invasion of Maryland had been successful? The remainder of the war certainly would have played out differently…

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

A gem of a book. Americans paid an enormous price at Antietam with over 6,000 dead in just a day or so. Yet, this prodigious sacrifice bought the beginning to the end of slavery and national division. The Union "victory" at Antietam kept the British and French from recognizing the Confederacy as an independent nation and, most important, allowed Lincoln to issue the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. Although Gettysburg was still in the offing, even the Confederate generals recognized that Antietam was their ruinous turning point. As Longstreet said twenty years after the war, "At Sharpsburg was sprung the keystone of the arch upon which the Confederate cause rested." And millions would break free from bondage as a result.

[Faisal Khan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good, not too detailed ( as was intention, this was intended for a more general audience) overview of antietam.

Interesting view from the Author. If the war ended in 1862, abolition would've been alot more constraint. Maybe it was a good thing McClellan was a inept goon. The prolongation of the war did have the positive of making emancipation quicker

[John Maag · Rating 5 out of 5]

I just flew through this book. A very quick informative read. Really enjoyed it.

[Trent Houghton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very easy to read! I really enjoyed this book. Only a small section was on the actual battle but the history and context provided was very interesting and informative.

[Scott Resnik · Rating 3 out of 5]

This slim volume offers a concise overview of the civil war through the battle for Antietam. Despite the title, the book spends very few pages on the battle itself. However, Prof McPherson does a skillful job of explaining the importance of the battle to the Union cause and issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation. Quick read that is worth the time.

[Stewart · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Sept. 17, 1862, battle of Antietam was the bloodiest single day in American history – and the most decisive battle of the American Civil War, historian James M. McPherson explains in his “Antietam: The Battle that Changed the Course of the Civil War.”
Published in 2002, this book is a concise (203 pages of text) but easy-to-read and fact-filled account of the most important battle of the American Civil War, aided by 34 pages of footnotes and bibliography, seven maps, and many photos.
McPherson presents the military and political situation in the United States and Confederacy in 1862 and explains Robert E. Lee’s decision to invade Maryland. “Lee continued to believe that in a long war the greater numbers, resources, and industrial capacity of the North would prevail. Thus the South should try for a knockout punch while its armies had the power to deliver it.”
In addition, Lee hoped that a Confederate victory would propel the Democrats to control of Congress after the November 1862 elections and perhaps lead to an offer of peace – and help push Great Britain to recognize the Confederacy.
The battle itself, the opposing armies led by Lee and George McClellan, is described in detail, aided by several maps. Union forces prevailed, but with a tremendous loss of life: 6,300 to 6,500 soldiers killed and mortally wounded with another 15,000 wounded but surviving, the casualties four times greater than those suffered on the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944.
To President Lincoln’s dismay, the overcautious McClellan did not pursue the retreating Confederate troops, saying he needed “an absolute assurance of success” to hazard another battle. “There we have McClellan in a nutshell,” McPherson writes, “he would take no initiative without ‘absolute assurance of success’ – which rarely if ever exists in any human endeavor, much less in a war.”
The Union victory at Antietam had a number of important consequences; Britain did not recognize the Confederacy, the Republicans, going against tradition, retained control of the U.S. Senate and House in November, and an exasperated Lincoln relieved McClellan of his command of the Army of the Potomac later in November. That fall, the president decided to issue his Emancipation Proclamation the next Jan. 1. “No other campaign and battle in the war had such momentous consequences as Antietam,” McPherson writes, not even the battles of Gettysburg and Vicksburg.
This book, part of the Crossroads of Freedom series, is a concise introduction to this pivotal battle, well-suited to the everyday reader interested in the Civil War.

[Bill Tress · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Bloodiest day in American history and the turning point of the Civil war. McPherson didn’t just describe this horrific battle, he describes what led up to the battle, then covered the battle in about ten pages and finally describes in depth the results of the battle. Initially, I was disappointed because I wanted to get right to the battle, but I have concluded that it was a necessary approach and very well done.
In many respects this is a narrative about the conflict between President Lincoln and General McClellan. Any study of this war clearly indicates the personal involvement of this President in battle strategy. We see this nowhere else in our history where a President follows battles as closely and provides direction to his Generals.
Of Course, this fact causes frustration for McClellan. Added to this fact is the personality of General McClellan, his positive and negative attributes helped him win and lose. The positive McClellan was loved by his troops, and this is best illustrated by the Armies miraculous recovery after the second battle of Bull Run; this defeat left the army demoralized. When he was reinstated at the head of the army, McPherson submits compelling evidence that he changed the culture of the army, and they regained their will to fight.
McClellan committed treason by ignoring orders at the battle of Second Bull Run by not supporting General Pope as needed.
The second positive attribute is this General’s ability to build a fighting force. This was again illustrated after he returned to command after the second battle of Bull Run, he got the army ready very quickly and engaged Lee’s Army that had moved into Maryland; this quick action surprised even General lee.
The negatives are so severe that they are worse than his positive attributes. He was slow in decision making and he constantly misreads the strength of his enemy. He always requested more material and men but was reluctant to commit them to battle. While he won the battle of Antietam, his mistakes on the battlefield and his hesitancy to follow a defeated rebel army cost him his job. McPherson’s writing skills simplified complicated issues, and his thorough research makes this a compelling narrative. His narrative brought to light for this reader issues that were important in the civil war narrative, yet seldom found in other descriptions of battle. For instance, throughout this war the issue of slavery was paramount. Slaves at every opportunity used battles and the presence of Union armies to escape. One example is described as follows: “the fort attracted runaway slaves from nearby Confederate camps. The Union commander at the fort was Benjamin Butler, who proved to be a better lawyer and politician than a fighting soldier. Butler refused to return the escapees to their master’s and ingeniously labeled them “contraband of war” because they had worked for the Confederacy. The phrase caught on quickly; for the rest of the war slaves who came within Union lines were known as contrabands”. Butler’s decision had a major effect. It reverberated throughout the army and even affected politics; Lincoln endorsed this position. Its effect was to take slave labor from the south and gave ex slaves the opportunity to fight for the Union cause. Congress subsequently passed legislation called the Confiscation Act that utilized Butler’s concept of considering slaves as contraband, I had previously known about slaves fleeing their slave masters, but did not know of Butlers brilliant legal decision, excellent job McPherson!
I also enjoyed McPherson’s narrative about Lee’s advance into Maryland. Since Maryland was a border state, Lee felt that he would be welcomed in the state but that proved wrong. Marylanders saw the Confederate army as an invading force. McPherson made this clear in describing the citizens of Frederick welcoming the Union Army just a few days after Lee passed through the town. The idea that the Union army was defending its home territory and had the support of its citizens galvanized the moral of these frequently defeated troops and made them ready to fight at Antietam.
McPherson brought up another issue that was a point that permeated this war. McClellan did not have the same view of this war as Lincoln. This made McClellan a traitor and Treasonous. He did not see slavery as an issue, his view was to bring the South back into the Union in a gentlemanly even Chivalrous fashion. This may explain his slow movements and failure to pursue. Lincoln saw that the South would not return voluntarily and had to be defeated. It required total war, not chivalrous war. Once the Union embraced this concept Generals like Grant and Sherman led the Army, the Union achieved victory. McPherson illustrated this point in the action surrounding the Battle of Antietam.
The movement of the Armies and the actual battle are graphically described and the mistakes of McCallan are pointed out in such detail that the reader agrees with Lincoln’s assessment that McClellan had to be replaced.
But this replacement, General Burnside, is an interesting selection. He didn’t do much in the battle for Antietam. The case can be made that he had orders to stall any movement until ordered. But he was slow to act even with this order. McPherson said he pouted because his force was reduced, and units were reassigned. This alone is an example of Generals being passive aggressive and costing lives and losing battles. His obsession with crossing the bridge is an issue because McPherson points out that the creek under this bridge could have been forged in places where it was waist deep, yet Burnside persevered to cross that bridge and incurred unneeded casualties as a result. But Lincoln had no one else at the time, so Burnside became the Head of the Army until he was defeated at Fredericksburg and replaced by Joseph Hooker.
McPherson excelled in the discussion of the battle’s aftermath. It was a disastrous defeat for Lee. Most reporters, including participant Generals stated that it was the first stage of defeat for the Confederacy. The victory gave Lincoln the opportunity to issue his Emancipation Proclamation. This document had a worldwide impact because it ended any chance of the Confederacy getting recognition from England or France. McPherson’s effort in this narrative is well earned and went beyond just a battle but was a discourse on the entire war.

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

McPherson sets out to demonstrate that the battle at Antietam in 1862 marked a pivotal moment during the American Civil War, and in this he is correct. However, while the battle itself is not the main focus of the book very few pages are devoted to the actual events. McPherson spends almost the first two-thirds of the book building up to Antietam and the last, and relatively short, last chapter quickly examines the results of the Union "victory".

McPherson makes liberal use of eyewitness accounts and primary sources but for some reason fails to include any thoughts from the commanding Confederate general at Antietam, Robert E. Lee, on why the Confederate army retreated.

The Union did not win an overwhelming victory and based on McPherson's narrative, the battle at Antietam comes across as less important than the effect of Union General McClellan's overly-inflated account of the Federals success to President Lincoln. In fact, the way McPherson tells the story, Antietam comes across as a Union victory more from Lee's withdrawal from Maryland than from anything the Northern forces did.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

A clear and concise account of the Civil War with a focus on why the Battle of Antietam (also known as Sharpsburg) was a true turning point in the war. Though the slaughter in this rural area of Maryland in September 1862 led to the death of nearly equal numbers on both sides (about 6,500 total), it led to retreat of Lee's army from the North, effectively ended the potential of England and France to recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate nation, and provided an opportunity for Lincoln to proceed with the Emancipation Proclamation. McPherson is masterful in mashalling his narrative to include the background of the key political, economic, and social factors as a complement to the military events. Because of the compressed format of 160 pages, he is not able to linger on the personalities and strategy details of the commanders or the experience of individual soldiers. Thus, it is to be expected that the reader suffers some from limitations in emotional engagement in this account. �

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

solid general history covering the military, political and social implications of the bloody battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg) and the subsequent issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation.
This book makes me want to read Battle Cry of Freedom, Macpherson's general history of hte Civil War. He's highly accessible.

[Kyle · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's the first Civil War book I've read that I can remember, but it was very interesting. It provided a lot of insight into the battle it focused on, but also into the surrounding elements (both political and social) that made this battle so important.

[Rae · Rating 3 out of 5]

A concise account of the momentous Civil War battle as well as the smaller conflicts that led up to it. It is clear that either side could have changed the outcome of the war. History is made up of individual decisions. Fascinating.

[Schoppie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though brief, this is a fine account of the events leading up to Antietam, the battle itself, and its consequences. McPherson never fails to deliver top quality research and reading!

[Rob · Rating 4 out of 5]

After listening to several audiobooks of History, I feel like the general rule of thumb is to skip audiobooks and stick to the text copy when it comes to Historical Nonfiction. But I feel like this book in particular actually breaks the rule a little bit. I will admit, perhaps it is coming from the fact that I have been a lover of Civil War History for well over 20 years now, so this all very much information I've learned 2 or 3 times over. But with that in mind, I quite enjoyed this audiobook version.

Let me start by getting my nitpick out of the way, and that is the book itself spends almost 2/3rd of the pages setting up Antietam and getting to the battle itself. For me, that felt like a lot of background just to get to the part of the book we were supposed to be reading. By the time we get to the battle, it is a quick synopsis and then it's over. So it was a bit of a let down in that way.

I think Audience has to be taken into account though, as I believe this book is really meant for general audiences more so than any large tome of History would be. So if you have NO idea what the Battle of Antietam is, or if you wanted to learn about it for the first time as an Adult, then this is the book for you!

Listening to the audio version of the book was pretty entertaining as well. It felt like I was listening to a PBS recording of "The Civil War" by Ken Burns sans background music. It felt a lot like returning to a part of History I've not read much about in recent years, and I enjoyed that. The narrator of this audiobook is definitely a huge plus and I feel like I've heard him before in other productions on the Civil War, though I can't quite place him.

So to sum it up, I would highly recommend this book to readers who haven't really heard about Antietam before. Maybe you're planning a trip or you just found out about it. But if you are a huge Civil War Buff looking to supplement your knowledge of the war, then I have to admit there are probably better works out there for you. McPherson himself writes a much more comprehensive history as well, for those who are looking for an 800 page tome to read. But again, to be fair, I don't think McPherson or anyone involved in the publishing wrote this book expecting it to cater to that crowd. So in the end it accomplishes the goal it set out to do quite nicely, in my opinion.

[Carol · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is part of a series, “Pivotal Moments In American History” edited by David Hackett Fischer and James M. McPerson. Their series works from a slant on writing history considering “problems of historical contingency.” As I understand this, the narrative in each history carries us through the social and personal events in the lives of the people playing out their daily circumstances, and how history in fact does pivot on these factors.

The Battle of Antietam was not in all truth a resounding victory for the Union. McClellan was a fairly impotent leader for the Union Army and was hesitant to move decisively to actually end the war. Between his reticence and Lee’s determination, the war lasted way too long and a tragic thousands of lives were lost. [Ahem! MY opinion.]

Still, taking into consideration the “Pivotal Moments”, it was in this battle where the Union managed to turn Lee’s Army away, that history changed. First of all, while France and England were on the brink of throwing in with the Confederates by recognizing them as sovereign and thus proffering the Confederates their aid, the results of Antietam dashed that alliance once and for all.

Secondly, because of this urgently needed victory for the Union, Lincoln was at last able to issue forth The Emancipation Proclamation which brought the war into a whole new dynamic giving it impetus and moral rectitude.

I think most real scholars really like to read details about battles. I don’t. This book didn’t give blow by blow accounts, but rather carefully laid ground work up to and beyond the battle itself. Here we see Lee’s lost orders being found by a Union soldier in the most improbably way, making a drastic change of events.

Again, pressing upon Lincoln the weight of The Emancipation Proclamation, and the timing that his decision required, reveals how American History might have been very different had not Antietam been considered a Union victory.

[Doninaz · Rating 5 out of 5]

As author of Battle Cry of Freedom, a Pulitzer Prize account of the complete Civil War and its related events, James McPherson is well-qualified to write about individual Civil War battles. But, McPherson makes it clear that Antietam is about more than a battlefield. He frames the battle, not just in its horrendous scope, but in the perspective of its importance.

Lee believed that he needed early dominance, because the Union’s depth of resources would eventually turn the tide. So, when the Union suffered a series of losses and Lincoln shifted troops away from McClellan resulting in general demoralization, Lee took the opportunity to act. In September 1862, he crossed the Potomac with intentions to invade the North. But, Lincoln had reinstated McClellan, and his popularity with the troops boosted morale on the eve of battle.

Then, the improbable happens: two Union soldiers discover a misplaced copy of Lee’s “Special Orders 191” containing details of the Confederate Army’s troop movements, including the timing and roads to be taken. This event played a role in the Antietam outcome. But even with this foreknowledge, the results were offset by McClellan’s bias toward caution and his tendency to overestimate Lee’s strength. The result, historically bloody but not decisive, was “good enough.”

As a consequence:
1. Lincoln had his “victory” with the military support needed to proceed with the emancipation proclamation, making slavery a major war issue.
2. Congressional pressure subsided to sue for peace.
3. European governments shrunk from their inclinations to support the Confederacy.

In this concise book, McPherson presents a comprehensive picture of both this battle and its effects, which make the Battle of Antietam a turning point in the war.

[Nicholas · Rating 4 out of 5]

When I read the historical nonfiction book Antietam written by William McPherson, I felt the history behind its events. It is written in 3rd person point of view because the author is not speaking himself but only what the characters in the book said. This book follows the historical event of the American Civil War that led to what America is like today. The author uses a lot of dialogue and word choice to express how devastating some of the battles in the Civil War were. The book transfers throughout many characters perspectives but mainly General McClellan is the character that leads the North into victories and what his strategies are. In the perspective of General McClellan, we read about what he does as a general, what he does to be victorious or survive with minimal costs, and how he reacts to others within the army. We learn about the major turning points in the Civil War and how they affected the morale of one side or the other. The North and South went to war because the North was controlling the South’s way of life and soon the effort for the abolition of slavery was added to the list of causes. This book reminds me of Enemy At The Gates because it is about two sides that were formally friends but then because of the power that Russia had and they sided with the Allied powers, Germany believed they had to be destroyed. This compares to Antietam because the South’s way of life included racism and no central government. The North believed this was politically incorrect so they sent in troops to conquer the revolt(Southern states seceding from the Union). This is what led to the American Civil War. This is a great books for readers who are entertained with informational history and politics.

[Stuart · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have immense respect for authors who are able to do more with less. While it cannot be denied that writing a massive, multi-volume epic history of a subject is an impressive achievement, I am often more enamored with historians who manage to convey nearly as much in a fraction of text. I recently read Stephen Sears’ impressive tome of a history on the battle of Gettysburg, and there can be no denying that it is impressive, but it is James McPherson’s far shorter history of Antietam that has left me stunned with what it achieves.

McPherson is no stranger to impressive book lengths. Earlier this year I read his classic Battle Cry of Freedom, which, while also a very admirable example of compressing an enormous amount of history into a single volume, clocks in at over eight hundred pages of history. That is a book worthy of all of its praises, and while I love a good doorstopper to read, sometimes I want something quick and to the point. McPherson’s history of Antietam shows that he can deliver this in spades.

Measuring in at under two hundred pages, just over 150 if you discount notes and bibliography, Crossroads of Freedom manages to cover not just the battle itself but almost the entire American Civil War up to that fateful September day in 1862. The central framing device of Crossroads of Freedom is the notion that Antietam was a crucial turning point in the American Civil War, possibly the turning point. Certainly it suggests that the Confederacy came very close to winning the war in the late summer of 1862 and that their defeat at Antietam and its political aftermath (the Emancipation Declaration and favorable mid-term election results for the Lincoln administration) kept the war going and led eventually to the Confederacy’s defeat (albeit with many more bumps along the way). Antietam also marks the dividing line between the American Civil War as a war for reunion and one for emancipation - a critical difference which has had a lasting impact on America. While often overshadowed by Gettysburg in popular memory, McPherson makes a strong case for Antietam being the war’s most important single battle.

This is not a history for people who want every little detail of the order of battle, which regiment fought where, casualty numbers, etc. Instead it is a history of the importance of the battle in the context of its time - especially the pressures facing both sides leading up to the conflict and the impact it had on the overall shape of the war. While from time to time I enjoy the nitty gritty detail, I must confess that this kind of history appeals to me much more and that McPherson delivers it so well and so quickly is a master stroke. Highly recommended.