This Day in Civil War History September 17th, 1862 Battle of Antietam

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/antietam-the-bloodiest-day-in-american-history ^

[mainepatsfan]

Sep 17, 1862:

Antietam: The Bloodiest Day in American History

Confederate General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia and Union General George B. McClellan's Army of the Potomac fight to a standstill along a Maryland creek on the bloodiest day in American history. Although the battle was a tactical draw, it forced Lee to end his invasion of the North and retreat back to Virginia.

After Lee's decisive victory at the Second Battle of Bull Run on August 30, 1862, the Confederate general had steered his army north into Maryland. Lee and Confederate President Jefferson Davis believed that another Rebel victory might bring recognition and aid from Great Britain and France. Lee also sought to relieve pressure on Virginia by carrying the conflict to the North. His ragtag army was in dire need of supplies, which Lee hoped to obtain from Maryland farms that were untouched by the war.

Lee split his army as he moved into Maryland. One corps marched to capture Harpers Ferry, Virginia, while the other two searched for provisions. Although a copy of Lee's orders ended up in the hands of McClellan, the Union general failed to act quickly, allowing Lee time to gather his army along Antietam Creek at Sharpsburg, Maryland. McClellan arrived on September 16 and prepared to attack.

[tutstar]

gnip

[The_Media_never_lie]

take it you don’t know what Lincoln said about slavery then and why he went to war, psstt it was not slavery... a little speech about preserving the union and not freeing slaves. I’ll let you search it through Bing etc

I do indeed know what Lincoln said.

Lincoln was a complicated man and a politicion. Contrary to the Geico commercial, he might have said one thing in the south and another for northern consumption. Regardless, slavery was an underlying cause of the war, not the only cause.

An eyewitness report of Lincoln visiting freed slaves in Federally occupied Richmond indicated they (the freed slaves) looked upon Lincoln as an emancipator. That's good enough for me.

[central_va]

Lincoln was a complicated man and a politicion(sic)

Is that what we call reprobates now?

[Mr. Lucky]

Maybe the same one who, a year later, sealed the Confederacy’s fate by ordering General Longstreet’s corps to attack General Meade’s center across a 3/4 mile wide killing field.

[manc]

it was never about slavery for Lincoln, for others yes, underlying for some yes, , cause for some yes but not for Lincoln and I guess you did not read what Central wrote to you.

Lincoln said in his own words why he was going to war and he also said in that speech if it meant keeping all slavery intact but keep the union he would do it.

His own words.

[manc]

for some it seems they will just ignore the words of Lincoln because they read a report freed blacks in Richmond were happy when Lincoln was there and how he reacted.
LOL

as for complicated, I’ve never heard of him described like that before

[mainepatsfan]

I always thought that an interesting tour would be: 1. Antietam (1862 invasion of north) 2. Gettysburg (1863 invasion of north) 3. Monocacy (1864 invasion of north)

My old town of Hagerstown saw Confederate soldiers during all three.

[mainepatsfan]

Davis trampled in state's rights in ways Lincoln would never dreamed of doing,

KirbySmithdom being just one example.

[Huck]

the 13 states driven by bankruptcy and dissention

Incorrect. Had the Philly delegates done what they were authorized to do---amend the Articles of Confederation to give the Congress power to tax and power to regulate commerce, both your complaints would have been negated. Of course, certain delegates in Philly had grander ideas in mind, and ultimately won the day, to our detriment.

[Ditto]

Incorrect. Had the Philly delegates done what they were authorized to do---amend the Articles of Confederation to give the Congress power to tax and power to regulate commerce, both your complaints would have been negated.

So how would things be different than under the Constitution?

[Huck]

The biggest most decisive differences are that the Articles contained “expressly delegated” powers, whereas the Constitution contains implied powers, and the Articles did not have a permanent judiciary, but rather a judiciary appointed as needed, with a much smaller scope of power. Those two differences alone are decisive. You combine implied powers with Article 3 powers, and you get what we have.