Even "Porter Alexander, Lee's ordnance chief and one of the most perceptive contemporary observers of Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia, called his decision to stand at Antietam 'the greatest military blunder that Gen. Lee ever made'" (Owens 2004). Historians are divided as to the real purpose behind the Maryland campaign, which seems like an "isolated maneuver, another manifestation of Lee's innate aggressiveness as a commander. Some have gone so far as to suggest that Lee's forays into Union territory were undertaken primarily to maintain his claim on scarce Confederate resources that might have been used to greater strategic purpose in the West" (Owens 2004). Whether a demoralization strategy or an effort merely to show Confederate aggression, the focus on Lee in most historians' analysis shows how Lee dominated this conflict, and defined the terms of the battle. Thus, even if Lee acted unwisely, he was clearly 'in control,' while McClellan was mainly functioning a reactive force, in a timid fashion that was inconsistent with his actual resources and numerical strength. This timid, hesitant strategic approach to the South would later, of course, be shuttled with the more...
(2009). BBC. Retrieved February 22, 2009. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3245140Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now