There are different articles, letters, and reports from individuals that give a different observation of bloody the Battle of Antietam was. The descriptions given are different from each other, but they contribute in showing how awful the United States greatest tragedy was. While the personal account of a Confederate soldier and a nurse who was the mother of a soldier was used, the sources for the second part of the blog will be from newspaper articles and the commanders of the battle.
A news article from the Harper’s Weekly, a magazine based in New York City, goes into detail how horrific the battle was:
“The severest fighting of the war was followed by the most appalling sights upon the battle-field. Never, I believe, was the ground strewn with the bodies of the dead and the dying in greater numbers or in more shocking attitudes. Let those who desire to witness a great battle, and gratify themselves with the sublimest spectacle which mortals ever gaze upon, hear but once the cries and groans of the wounded, and see the piles of dead men, in attitudes which show the writhing agony in which they died—faces distorted with the pains which afflicted the dead in their latest moments, begrimed and covered with clotted blood, arms and legs torn from the body or the body itself torn asunder, and all the scenes upon the field of battle which fill one with horror and sadness, and they will be content to deprive themselves in future of the sublimity of a battle scene, when they think upon the horrors of the field where the dead lie in heaps unburied, and the dying and wounded uncared for beside them. The faces of those who had fallen in the battle were, after more than a day's exposure, so black that no one would ever suspect that they had been white. All looked like negroes, and as they lay in piles where they had fallen, one upon another, they filled the by-standers with a sense of horror. In the road they lay scattered all around, and the stench which arose from the bodies decomposing in the sun was almost unendurable. Passing after night from Sharpsburg to Hagerstown upon the turnpike, it required the greatest care to keep my horse from trampling upon the dead, so thickly were they strewn around. Along the line for not more than a mile at least one thousand five hundred lay unburied.” (http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1862/october/antietam-battlefield.htm)
Although no numbers of casualties are given it still shows how deadly it was. The descriptions used by the writer of the article, makes it seem as if it was an anti-war piece of work. It’s surprising an article which wouldn’t do well for helping morale support or support in the war be published during a war. For example, “…and all the scenes upon the field of battle which fill one with horror and sadness, and they will be content to deprive themselves in future of the sublimity of a battle scene, when they think upon the horrors of the field…dying and wounded uncared for…” The great detail in the sights, sounds, and smell gives an unpleasant view of the aftermath of a battle, which can be easily imagined. “…Hear but once the cries and groans of the wounded, and see the piles of dead men… the stench which arose from the bodies decomposing in the sun was almost unendurable.” The where so many killed in the battlefield that the writer had “required the greatest care to keep my horse from trampling upon the dead, so thickly were they strewn around.”
Another article, from The Washington Star, gives an account on the casualties from the battle:
“It is impossible at this writing to form any correct idea of our loss or that of the enemy, but it is heavy on both sides. Ours will probably reach in killed and wounded 10,000. That of the enemy will not exceed it.
The enemy's dead, which nearly all fell into our hands, were thickly strewn over the fields, laying in heaps in many places.
Our wounded were immediately carried from the field, and the best possible attention given them.” (http://www.civilwarhome.com/washstarantietam.htm)
Unlike the first editorial this doesn’t give so much detail on the casualties. In the article it is admitted that “It is impossible at this writing to form any correct idea of our loss or that of the enemy.” But, any number given for the federal is about 10,000. It is simply given that the confederates have no more than there adversary. There is a difference in the caretaking of the wounded. The Harper’s Weekly states, “…dying and wounded uncared for…” In this article the wounded were “immediately carried from the field, and the best possible attention given them.”
For President Jefferson Davis of the CSA casualties were so appalling that it prevented him and General Robert Lee from wanting to continue the battle. Davis said, “…our loss had been so great, and there was so much disorganization in some of the commands, that I did not consider it proper to renew the attack that day.” (http://www.historycentral.com/CivilWar/Ant/Davis.html) No details are given by President Davis, but we know that casualties were so high that no more could be sustained. The Confederate Army had to retreat and regroup in order fight another battle.
The most accurate report on casualties from the participants of the battle would be from George McClellan, General of the Army of the Potomac: http://aotw.org/exhibit.php?exhibit_id=19
His report shows the amount of officers and enlisted killed, wounded, and missing from a unit as small as a division. From the report it shows that over 10,000 of the 12,500 casualties were wounded or missing. For every officer or enlisted soldier killed 5 other soldiers were wounded or missing. What the report does not account for captured. Either there were no sightings of federal troops being captured or either it is assumed that several of the soldiers missing might have been captured. Unlike the article from the Harper’s Weekly, this report doesn’t uses gory descriptions but tables and numbers to show the actual number of victims.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
World Correspondent. “Horrors of the Battlefield.” Harper’s Weekly. 11 October 1862.
Accessed 24 October 2009
Available from: http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1862/october/antietam-battlefield.htm
Anonymous. “The War in Maryland.” The Washington Star. 19 September 1862. Accessed 18 September 2009
Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0917.html#article
McClellan, George to Halleck. 29 September, 1862. M.Gen McClellan's Official Reports. Antietam on the Web: Official Records. Available from: http://aotw.org/exhibit.php?exhibit_id=19
Anonymous. Antietam on the Web. Updated 20 Ocotber 2009; Cited 24 October 2009. http://aotw.org/index.php
Davis, Jefferson. Jefferson Davis's View of the Battle. History Central.com. Accessed 24 October 2009. Available from: http://www.historycentral.com/CivilWar/Ant/Davis.html
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)