Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

Today is the 158th anniversary of the bloodiest day in American history

Posted on 9/17/20 at 7:24 am
Posted by RollTide1987
Augusta, GA
Member since Nov 2009
64955 posts
Posted on 9/17/20 at 7:24 am
On September 17, 1862, an epic battle erupted along the banks of Antietam Creek, near the small Maryland town of Sharpsburg. Here the Union Army of the Potomac - Major General George B. McClellan commanding - and the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia - Robert E. Lee commanding - clashed for 12 straight hours. The battle itself can be divided into three different phases: the Cornfield, the Bloody Lane, and the Burnside Bridge.

The opening phase of the battle took place in a head high cornfield owned by a farmer named Miller. Here and in the areas immediately around it, some of the bloodiest and most intense action of the Civil War would take place as elements of three different Union army corps attempted to wrestle control of the area from troops under the command of Stonewall Jackson. In just 4-5 hours of combat, the two armies would suffer a combined 12,000 casualties in this sector with the Cornfield changing hands no less than 10 different times. While the fighting on this part of the field was desperate, it also turned out to be completely inconclusive as both sides simply fought themselves to exhaustion. From here the battle would shift south to a sunken wagon road that would hereafter be known as the Bloody Lane.

The Confederate center had taken shelter in the Bloody Lane, which they hoped to use as a natural trench against oncoming Federal attacks. Two separate Union divisions would strike at the Confederates in this area, the first of which was heavily mauled by the Rebel defenders. The second division, that of Israel Richardson, managed to get up close and flank the Confederate position. A mistaken order to retreat, however, sent the Confederates falling back toward Sharpsburg - a move that cracked Lee's center wide open. Small but ferocious counterattacks by troops organized by Confederate general James Longstreet kept the Federals at bay. Upon hearing of the success of his soldiers at the Bloody Lane, McClellan was asked if he wanted to commit his reserves to the fight. He erred on the side of caution, however, and kept the thousands of men he had at his disposal from exploiting the breach. The brief firefight at the Bloody Lane had been a violent one, with both sides suffering a combined 5,600 casualties. Antietam's battle toll was now 17,500 and climbing...



As the battle for the Bloody Lane cooled down, the fighting shifted south once again to a stone bridge spanning Antietam Creek. Here 12,500 men under the command of Major General Ambrose Burnside were being kept from crossing the Antietam by some 400 Georgians under the command of Colonel Henry L. Benning. Burnside wasted precious time in his attempts to cross the bridge which now bears his name, taking three hours to storm and capture the span. Burnside then wasted another three hours crossing his IX Corps across the Antietam and getting them into battle formation. He began his assault around 3 PM, with just 3,000 Confederates standing between him and Robert E. Lee's escape route back to Virginia. The inexcusable time it took to take the Burnside Bridge and to organize his men for a final assault came back to haunt him, however. Just then, A.P. Hill's Light Division was arriving on the field after a forced march from Harpers Ferry. They slammed right into the left flank of Burnside's assault force and forced it to retreat back to the Burnside Bridge in disarray.

As night fell the fighting along Antietam Creek began to die down. The next day, September 18, Lee remained in his position daring McClellan to attack him. McClellan, however, refused to do so and Lee retreated back into Virginia that evening. Tactically, the Battle of Antietam was a stalemate but strategically it was a Northern victory as Lee was forced to abandon his Maryland campaign. Lincoln used this opportunity to announce his Emancipation Proclamation on September 22. Dissatisfied with McClellan's failure to follow up and pursue Lee's army in the battle's aftermath, Lincoln would permanently relieve him of command two months later.

In one day, more than 3,600 men were killed and 19,000 were wounded and captured - more American dead than Pearl Harbor, D-Day, or 9/11. Shocking portraits of the dead at Antietam, taken by photographer Alexander Gardner, are displayed in the North - bringing the horrors of war to a curious public for the very first time.

September 17, 1862, remains the bloodiest single day in American history.






Posted by Loup
Ferriday
Member since Apr 2019
11214 posts
Posted on 9/17/20 at 7:31 am to
It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it.
Posted by CocomoLSU
Inside your dome.
Member since Feb 2004
150566 posts
Posted on 9/17/20 at 7:42 am to
History is fascinating.

Hopefully we've all learned from this time period since, because people are fricking idiots, it looks like we may be regressing into another civil war at some point.

Posted by LSUBoo
Knoxville, TN
Member since Mar 2006
101915 posts
Posted on 9/17/20 at 7:43 am to
It still seems odd to me that Maryland was considered the "South" back then.
Posted by Sput
Member since Mar 2020
7885 posts
Posted on 9/17/20 at 8:02 am to
quote:

It still seems odd to me that Maryland was considered the "South" back then.


How about the Army of Northern Virginia was the pride of the south then.

That Army would now be headed by General Brennan with division commanders Strok and Comey.
Posted by GetCocky11
Calgary, AB
Member since Oct 2012
51247 posts
Posted on 9/17/20 at 8:03 am to
quote:

It still seems odd to me that Maryland was considered the "South" back then.



It is where Harriet Tubman was enslaved.

Ask any random person and they'd probably assume Harriet Tubman ran away from some place like Alabama. Nope...it was Maryland.
Posted by No Colors
Sandbar
Member since Sep 2010
10336 posts
Posted on 9/17/20 at 8:04 am to
I am fascinated by people who look on this chapter as some sort of obscure history from a distant era. As if thousands of Americans fighting each other to the death could never happen again.


If history tells us anything, it's that another war like this isn't possible. It's a certainty.
Posted by jimbeam
University of LSU
Member since Oct 2011
75703 posts
Posted on 9/17/20 at 8:05 am to
WW1 was the war to end all wars right?
Posted by La Place Mike
West Florida Republic
Member since Jan 2004
28791 posts
Posted on 9/17/20 at 8:35 am to
quote:

It still seems odd to me that Maryland was considered the "South" back then.


People in Maryland still consider themselves southerners. I chuckle when they say that.
Posted by Boston911
Lafayette
Member since Dec 2013
1933 posts
Posted on 9/17/20 at 8:43 am to
Did anyone pay Miller for his corn crop damage or did he have crop insurance?
Posted by Wolfhound45
Hanging with Chicken in Lurkistan
Member since Nov 2009
120000 posts
Posted on 9/17/20 at 8:46 am to
quote:

RollTide1987
Excellent work.

For my Louisiana brethren;

Tigers in the Cornfield: Hays’ Louisiana Brigade at Antietam
Posted by CocomoLSU
Inside your dome.
Member since Feb 2004
150566 posts
Posted on 9/17/20 at 8:57 am to
quote:

Did anyone pay Miller for his corn crop damage or did he have crop insurance?



Weirdly, I wondered the same thing when reading it.
Posted by Sao
East Texas Piney Woods
Member since Jun 2009
65632 posts
Posted on 9/17/20 at 9:03 am to

This is going to sound dumb to many but I've often wondered or pictured what would have happened if the South broke from the musket a few times. Use cannon fire but also went the way of the indian and adopted the bow and arrow with the musket. Could get off 10:1 in such rapid succession and cause overwhelming injury at incredible speed. Especially in the open field battles.
Posted by Mstate
Birmingham
Member since Nov 2009
9669 posts
Posted on 9/17/20 at 9:07 am to
quote:

Use cannon fire but also went the way of the indian and adopted the bow and arrow with the musket.


Could have first line fire off a shot then pass the gun to be reloaded and pick up a bow and fire off 10 arrows then repeat the process. Probably would have been deadly
Posted by Sao
East Texas Piney Woods
Member since Jun 2009
65632 posts
Posted on 9/17/20 at 9:17 am to

Wasn't old tech either. Was used to kill US calvary well before 62 up until the 80s.
Posted by RollTide1987
Augusta, GA
Member since Nov 2009
64955 posts
Posted on 9/17/20 at 9:22 am to
quote:

Use cannon fire but also went the way of the indian and adopted the bow and arrow with the musket. Could get off 10:1 in such rapid succession and cause overwhelming injury at incredible speed. Especially in the open field battles.


The effective range of a longbow is 200 yards, while the Enfield Rifle's effective range was between 400-500 yards.

quote:

Was used to kill US calvary well before 62 up until the 80s.


By the time of the Civil War, most of the clashes between Native Americans and U.S. Cavalry involved rifle-on-rifle. The worst U.S. defeat of the Indian Wars - Little Bighorn - saw the natives using mainly rifles.
This post was edited on 9/17/20 at 9:25 am
Posted by Lsupimp
Ersatz Amerika-97.6% phony & fake
Member since Nov 2003
78362 posts
Posted on 9/17/20 at 9:25 am to
quote:

In one day, more than 3,600 men were killed and 19,000 were wounded and captured


White privilege.
Posted by tide06
Member since Oct 2011
11143 posts
Posted on 9/17/20 at 9:26 am to
quote:

I am fascinated by people who look on this chapter as some sort of obscure history from a distant era. As if thousands of Americans fighting each other to the death could never happen again.


If history tells us anything, it's that another war like this isn't possible. It's a certainty.

Given where we are at as a nation this kind of history is more relevant than ever.

Both sides should watch Ken Burns again to be reminded of the long term ramifications of remaining intractably divided culturally and politically.
Posted by Sao
East Texas Piney Woods
Member since Jun 2009
65632 posts
Posted on 9/17/20 at 9:38 am to

True but the Henry wasn't largely used by either side in 62. Production was low. Hell good thing it wasn't. Would've slaughtered untold more thousands of men.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram