PDA

View Full Version : Good Morning...America's Bloodiest Day



Okla-homey
9/17/2006, 07:36 AM
This Good Morning episode was originally broadcasted on Sept 17, 2005. It has been reformated to fit your screen

September 17, 1862 Antietam: The Bloodiest Day in American History

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/1806/antietam20national20cemetery1q.jpg
Antietam National Cemetery

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.
http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/1261/amcclellan7mb.gif
"Little Mac" McClellan. A very able administrator, he trained, organized and equipped the Federal Army practically by sheer force of will. As a tactician, he succed

As an aside, the battle of Antietam (called "Sharpsburg" by Southerners) pretty much shot Lee's army's wad for the year of 1862. Lee wouldn't try to move north again until early summer of the next year when in July 1863, Lee's army, and the Confederacy's fortunes, would be at high tide near a little town in Pennsylvania called Gettysburg.
http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/8316/alee9ad.jpg
Bobby Lee

Now, back to our story of just what went down on Sept 17, 1862.

It had been roughly two weeks since Lee's decisive victory at the Second Battle of Bull Run (AKA Second Manassas) on August 30, 1862. The Confederate general had steered his army north into Maryland. Lee and Confederate President Jefferson Davis believed that another big 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 operations orders ended up in the hands of McClellan -- which is an interesting story in and of itself, 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.

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/6407/anti955wd.th.jpg (http://img226.imageshack.us/my.php?image=anti955wd.jpg)
You can follow all the action on this NPS map.

ROUND 1: Fighting Joe Hooker vs. Stonewall Jackson

The Battle of Antietam actually consisted of three battles. Beginning at dawn on September 17, Union General Joseph Hooker's men stormed Confederate General Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson's troops around the Dunker Church, the West Woods, and David Miller's cornfield. The Federals made repeated attacks, but furious Rebel counterattacks kept the Yankees in check.

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/6464/ahooker23rw.jpg
Fightin' Joe Hooker -- he loved the ladies so much an army of prostitutes followed his corps wherever it went. Hence the name "hooker" for ladies who, well, you know.

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/226/ageneralthomasjackson0rv.jpg
Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. By this time next year, he'll be dead. Shot by his own men in error in the confusion and darkness after his greatest triumph at Chancellorsville.

ROUND 2: The Bloody Lane

By early afternoon on the 17th, the fighting moved south to the middle of the battlefield. Union troops under General Edwin Sumner inflicted appalling casualties on the Confederates along a sunken road that became known as "Bloody Lane" before the Southerners retreated. McClellan refused to apply reserves to exploit the opening in the Confederate center because he believed Lee's force to be much larger than it actually was.

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/6973/antietamlifestuff6oe.jpg
As it looks today at the national park

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/5589/aconfederatedead30zb.jpg
As it looked the day after the fight on Sept. 18, 1862. They've had time to move some of the dead for mass burial. It was said one could walk the entire half-mile length of the lane entirely stepping on bodies. In places, the blood was an inch deep.

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/4271/anttroi9th.jpg
The Irish Brigade going in and hurling itself against the center of the CS line along the sunken or "Bloody" lane.

ROUND 3 - Final: Burnside's Bridge

In the late afternoon, Union General Ambrose Burnside attacked General James Longstreet's troops across a stone bridge that came to bear Burnside's name. The Yankees crossed the creek, but a Confederate counterattack brought any further advance to a halt.

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/4460/alongstreet6cw.gif
Pete Longstreet...Lee called him his "old Warhorse." He lived through the war, making it to age 87.

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/1193/ambroseeverettburnside9kx.th.jpg (http://img226.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ambroseeverettburnside9kx.jpg)
Ambrose Burnside from Rhode Island. About the only thing good to say about the guy is he is the guy who gave his name to "sideburns". Seriously.

http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/7947/ddddddddddaburnsidebridgewpeople5ndki8.gif (http://imageshack.us)
"Burnside's Bridge" as it appears today.

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/8489/aburnsidesbridge6gm.jpg
From the US side of the bridge, pouring men into a meatgrinder.

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/7631/aburnsidesbridgestrain2ru.jpg
From high ground on the CS side of the bridge, pouring in fire ffrom rifle and artillery -- federal casualties here would be extreme as they had been that morning for the South along the "bloody lane."

Aftermath:
The fighting ended by early evening, and the two armies remained in place throughout the following day. After dark on September 18, Lee began pulling his troops out of their defenses for a retreat to Virginia.

The losses for the one-day battle were staggering. McClellan lost a total of 12,401 men, including 2,108 dead, 9,540 wounded, and 753 missing. Lee lost 10, 406, including 1,546 dead, 7,752 wounded, and 1,108 missing.

That's almost 23,000 men. For one day of fighting.

We would only lose approximately half that many in the three days of the invasion at Normandy in WWII 82 years later.
Although the Union army drove Lee's force back to Virginia, the battle was a lost opportunity for the Yankees. McClellan had an overwhelming numerical advantage, but he did not know it. Another attack on September 18 may well have scattered the Confederates and cut off Lee's line of retreat.

Epilogue:
A week later, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves in the states in rebellion. Most people don't know that's all it did. For example, four states which did not secede had slavery. They were Delaware, Maryland, Missouri and Kentucky. Slavery was unaffected in those states by the Emancipation Proclamation.

In fact, it was also pretty ineffective in freeing any slaves at all since, as I've said, it only affected those states in rebellion. Since those states were generally not under Federal control by virtue of the war, slaves there never felt the difference. The only practical effect of the proclamation was it changed the Northern goal from only a war to save the union, by adding to that goal, a crusade to end of slavery.

Flagstaffsooner
9/17/2006, 07:50 AM
I hate gawdamned yankees.

Okla-homey
9/17/2006, 07:54 AM
I hate gawdamned yankees.

at least they didn't cut off heads.

Jerk
9/17/2006, 07:59 AM
When they invent the time machine, I'm going to give all of Lee's men an AK-47 rifle.

(;

I have descendants from both sides, so if I gave the Army of Northern Virginia assault weapons, and one of them killed my Union great great grandfather, then what would happen to me? Then I would be dead (or, not exist) But then how would my great great grandfather get killed? Because I wouldn't be alive to take the rifle back in time.

Okla-homey
9/17/2006, 08:04 AM
When they invent the time machine, I'm going to give all of Lee's men an AK-47 rifle.

(;

You might enjoy a little alternative history novel called: "The Guns of the South" by Harry Turtledove.

http://www.amazon.ca/Guns-South-Harry-Turtledove/dp/product-description/0345384687

Jerk
9/17/2006, 08:11 AM
You might enjoy a little alternative history novel called: "The Guns of the South" by Harry Turtledove.

http://www.amazon.ca/Guns-South-Harry-Turtledove/dp/product-description/0345384687

Looks interesting. I bet most people don't know that Lee was against slavery.

(right?)

Flagstaffsooner
9/17/2006, 08:21 AM
When they invent the time machine, I'm going to give all of Lee's men an AK-47 Being a history nut, I often fantisize about such things. Wouldn't it be wonderful for the Confederate Air Force to napalm the gawdamn yankees at Gettysburg?

Okla-homey
9/17/2006, 12:04 PM
Looks interesting. I bet most people don't know that Lee was against slavery.

(right?)

Lee owned slaves, more specifically, his wife owned them and brought them into the marriage and according to the laws of the day in VA, they became his property to dispose of as he wished. The Lee's had not manumitted their slaves before the war ended, thus, I don't think you could reason he opposed slavery in general. He did oppose the notion of secession, but once VA threw in with the Confederacy (much later than the Deep South states) he would not lead forces against his home state and thus fought for the South.

Vaevictis
9/17/2006, 06:11 PM
I have descendants from both sides, so if I gave the Army of Northern Virginia assault weapons, and one of them killed my Union great great grandfather, then what would happen to me? Then I would be dead (or, not exist) But then how would my great great grandfather get killed? Because I wouldn't be alive to take the rifle back in time.

My theory is that if you go back in time with the intention of changing history, you will inherently fail -- because, if you did succeed in going back in time and change the history, you would never go back in time to do so in the first place.

Going back in time and changing history on accident, provided it doesn't change your going back in the first place, on the other hand is possible.

(An example of this is the recent movie version of "The Time Machine", in which the scientist creates a time machine in order to prevent the death of his wife/fiancee, and fails spectacularly over many attempts. He later learns that he fails because, without the death, he never would have invented the time machine in the first place.)

A lot of people think you'll just fork an alternate timeline where the Confederates win. And if you subscribe to that theory, your actions are pretty pointless because, well, those same people think that there are already an infinite number of alternate timelines where the Confederates won ;)

OCUDad
9/17/2006, 06:17 PM
My theory is that if you go back in time with the intention of changing history, you will inherently fail -- because, if you did succeed in going back in time and change the history, you would never go back in time to do so in the first place.Aw, you take all the fun out of everything.

Rogue
9/17/2006, 09:04 PM
Being from Idaho originally, I'm always surprised at the views on the Civil War, especially in the South. I've seen men nearly come to blows today arguing about it, whether it was about slavery, a way of life, agricultural rights, etc. Strange deal here in E. TN, it was a divided area with many divided loyalties but the majority of the area was "union". You'd never know it today though. I rode from here to D.C. with a couple of coworkers. Let's call one of 'em "a southern gal." She knew every battlefield we drove by and "both" names of the battlefields (I never knew that most had a "southern" name and a "northern" name.) Also I hear about people's grandparents who referred to the CW as "the war of northern aggression" or "that unpleasantness".

Vaevictis
9/17/2006, 09:19 PM
Aw, you take all the fun out of everything.

Actually, I should correct myself here, because I suppose it's theoretically possible to go back and intentionally change history provided that the results of that change still result in your wanting to go back and change it -- ie, if the results are hidden from your future self, or somehow compel you to go back and make the change, then *maybe* you could pull it off.

Arranging for those circumstances can be tricksy though.

Take the time machine example -- if the guy went into the future, learned about DNA and cloning, went back, grabbed the girl as she was dying, replaced the body with a dead clone, took the dying girl into the future to have advanced medicine save her, then bring her back at the instant he travelled back in time. I guess that would work, but tricksy it would be.

... why the **** are we talking about time travel in a thread about a Civil War battle again?

Okla-homey
9/17/2006, 09:20 PM
Being from Idaho originally, I'm always surprised at the views on the Civil War, especially in the South. I've seen men nearly come to blows today arguing about it, whether it was about slavery, a way of life, agricultural rights, etc. Strange deal here in E. TN, it was a divided area with many divided loyalties but the majority of the area was "union". You'd never know it today though. I rode from here to D.C. with a couple of coworkers. Let's call one of 'em "a southern gal." She knew every battlefield we drove by and "both" names of the battlefields (I never knew that most had a "southern" name and a "northern" name.) Also I hear about people's grandparents who referred to the CW as "the war of northern aggression" or "that unpleasantness".

I'm fairly certain Oklahoma would have eventually become an Indian state had it not been for the "Five Tribes'" alliance with the Cornfeds. The folks in power in DC after the war decided to exact a high price for those alliances. Example: up here in northeastern OK, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation used to extend all the way west and beyond what is now I-35. Shortly after the war, the Muscogee were stripped of that territory and by 1890, the nation owned less than half of their pre-war holdings. Ditto the other four nations as well.

http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/7293/ddddddddddokinterrmapnl5.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Widescreen
9/17/2006, 10:22 PM
No one needs to invent a time machine to go back in time. Just travel to the middle east and you're there.

Oops, looks like I just started another riot. Should I apologize now?

Vaevictis
9/17/2006, 11:40 PM
No one needs to invent a time machine to go back in time. Just travel to Ohio or Pennsylvania and you're there.

In the "fixed" tradition, an alternative destination. ;) Of course, the Amish pretty much keep to themselves.

sooneron
9/18/2006, 02:09 PM
I find it hilarious that people still get all hot and bothered over the Civil War. Get over it! You lost, or get over it! You razed the south like Hades. Both sides were phucked up and missed the big picture in their conquest to what was "right".

It was 150 friggin years ago!

Miko
9/18/2006, 03:30 PM
My friend Rusty Shackleford pointed out that there really was no American Civil War. It was all a sham perpetrated by the black-powder industry to reap huge profits off of the re-enactment crowd.

PhxSooner
9/18/2006, 03:37 PM
My great-grandmother was a sweet, God-fearin' Baptist who wouldn't say a curse word if her life depended on it. When she died in 1989 at 98 years, the only curse anyone had ever heard was "damn yankees". And the word "yankee" was never said without "damn" in front.:D

mdklatt
9/18/2006, 05:15 PM
Actually, I should correct myself here, because I suppose it's theoretically possible to go back and intentionally change history provided that the results of that change still result in your wanting to go back and change it -- ie, if the results are hidden from your future self, or somehow compel you to go back and make the change...

Or you just like ****ing with people. That's what would make me go back again, again, and again.