‘Except for the part about being outnumbered two or three to one, or about being beaten. Lee was forced to retreat and return to Viginia. His goal of attracting Maryland recruits to his army was a failure. And most importantly it showed to the European powers that the Union was not on the verge of defeat, thus ending forever what slim hope of foreign recognition there had been. By all accounts Antietam wound up being a disaster for the confederacy.’
Military historians throughout time since the battle disagree with your assertions.
While the ‘invasion’ did not acheive all that Lee had hoped, it did in fact end any Union effort that year to ‘march on Richmond’. The Union army was so staggered by the battle it lay quite for months afterwards.
Second, it shook the Union Army’s leadership to its core, caused the beginning of what can be described as a low intensity ‘mutiny’ of sorts.
Third, it gave Democrats plenty to crow about on the floors of both the House and Senate reminicent of what we are seeing from General Pelosi and Dingy Harry Reid today.
You assert it caused Europe to forget considering intervening on the CSA side. This is also incorrect, as most the major works about the era demonstrate conclusively. That didn’t come about til the following summer (1863) in the wake of Gettysburg.
Finally, about the ‘retreat’. Lee held his position along Antietam creek for another 24 hours, watching and waiting. The Union army didn’t attack, didn’t move. Given the ground itself was meaningless from a strategic viewpoint, holding it was by definition meaningless as well.
Objective people view the battle what it was, a draw. And a prime example of the failure of Union leadership that kept what should have been a year long conflict alive for four bloody years.
I would suggest that the Seven Days battles and Second Bull Run did more to end any attempts at Richomond than did Antietam. Lee's Maryland campaign ended in less than two weeks, that can hardly be considered a success. And the Army of the Potomac under McClellan quite often lay quiet for months.
Second, it shook the Union Army’s leadership to its core, caused the beginning of what can be described as a low intensity ‘mutiny’ of sorts.
I don't know anyone who would suggest that. Three months later they were fighting at Fredericksburg.
You assert it caused Europe to forget considering intervening on the CSA side. This is also incorrect, as most the major works about the era demonstrate conclusively. That didn’t come about til the following summer (1863) in the wake of Gettysburg.
Which major works do that? Most historians that I'm aware of agree that Antietam, coupled with the Emancipation Proclamation, ended forever any chance of British intervention. And without Great Britain no other European power was willing to recognize the confederacy.
Finally, about the ‘retreat’. Lee held his position along Antietam creek for another 24 hours, watching and waiting. The Union army didn’t attack, didn’t move. Given the ground itself was meaningless from a strategic viewpoint, holding it was by definition meaningless as well.
By retreat I mean that by the evening of September 18, Lee was withdrawing and heading back home to Virginia. What would you call it?
Objective people view the battle what it was, a draw.
More objective people consider it at best a tactical draw for the confederacy but over all a strategic defeat.