Skip to main content

Antietam

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Rocks and Rifles

Part of the book series: Advances in Military Geosciences ((AMG))

  • 460 Accesses

Abstract

Robert E. Lee exploited the geology of central Maryland on the largest scale during the Maryland Campaign and at the Battle of Antietam. In the days preceding the battle, he held the passes through the hard quartzite ridges of South Mountain to delay the Army of the Potomac’s advance towards his isolated Corps. Once McClellan arrived on the carbonate battleground around Sharpsburg, the Federal commander’s offensive tactics proved costly and largely futile. McClellan told each of his six Corps commanders of their specific assignment during the battle, but never the overall battleplan. As a result, the rolling terrain of the limestones, dolostones, and shales on the battlefield prohibited each Corps commander from observing the actions of their colleagues and coordinating and supporting their attacks. As a result, each portion of the battle was a disjointed and unsuccessful attempt to break Lee’s line. The opening morning phase of the battle was fought across the Conococheague Limestone, a rock formation known for consistently weathering and producing undulating terrain. Casualties were especially high during this fighting. The afternoon phase of the battle was concentrated around a Confederate position in the famous sunken lane. Here the Elbrook Formation, composed of alternating beds of limestone, harder dolostone, and softer shale, produced a rolling landscape that the Union officers used for concealment when on the offensive. The final phase of the battle was concentered around the southernmost bridge across Antietam Creek and the contact between the Elbrook and Waynesboro Formations. Burnside’s IX Corps was ordered to attack Lee’s right flank, but delays in capturing and crossing the bridge, and difficulty with the rugged terrain of the Elbrook, cost the Union greatly. The battle ended when A.P. Hill’s Light Division, marching from Harpers Ferry, arrived on the field to deliver the final counter-attack, saving Lee’s army.

“In the open the growing corn was cut from the stalks as with knives, and within the woods limbs of trees were torn away and rocks were splintered by the deadly fire”

—Rev. J. Richards Boyle, Adjutant of the 111th Pennsylvania Regiment, at “Pennsylvania at Antietam Day”, September 17th, 1904

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Lee’s ordering of Pickett’s Charge on July 3 demonstrates the degree of overestimation he had for what his veteran Confederate infantry were capable of accomplishing.

  2. 2.

    Examples of mis-statements such as this are too numerous to list. There are even entire books with misleading titles (e.g. America’s Deadliest Day: The Battle of Antietam, Terri Sievert). Gizmodo.com compiled a list of deaths organized by varying units of time then somehow doubled the number of deaths at Antietam, then listed Sept. 17 as “7200 Deaths, by the Day” (https://io9.gizmodo.com/estimated-deaths-within-estimated-lengths-of-time-1441118361).

  3. 3.

    Unhindered from rifle-fire from the sunken road; Confederate artillery on other portions of the field made the approach highly dangerous.

References

  • Bailey, R. H. (1984). The Bloodiest Day: The Battle of Antietam (176p). Alexandria: Time-Life Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassler, R. S. (1919). Cambrian and Ordovician (424p). Baltimore, MD. Maryland Geological Survey Systematic Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brezinski, D. K. (1992). Lithostratigraphy of the western Blue Ridge cover rocks in Maryland: Maryland Geological Survey Reports of Investigation 55, 69p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiles, P. (1998). Artillery hell! The guns of Antietam. Blue and Gray Magazine, XVI, 6–16, 24–25, 41–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleaves, E. T., Edwards, J., & Glaser, J. D. (1968). Geologic Map of Maryland. Map: Maryland Geological Survey, scale 1:250,000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demillo, R. V. (1983). Wavy and lenticular-bedded carbonate ribbon rocks of the Upper Cambrian Conococheague limestone, central Appalachians. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 53(4), 1121–1132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J., Jr. (1978). Geologic Map of Washington County, Maryland. Baltimore: Maryland Geological Survey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehlen, J., & Whisonant, R. C. (2008). Military Geology of Antietam Battlefield, Maryland, USA—Geology, terrain, and casualties. Geology Today, 24(1), 20–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frassanito, W. A. (1978). Antietam: The photographic legacy of America’s Bloodiest Day (304p). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, E. J. (2008). The rifle musket in Civil War combat: Reality and myth (296p). Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hippensteel, S. P. (2016). Carbonate rocks and American Civil War infantry tactics. Geosphere, 12(2), 234–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, J. M. (2002). Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam (224p). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Means, J. (2015). Roadside geology of Maryland, Delaware, and Washington, D.C. (Roadside Geology Series) (346p). Cambridge: Mountain Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nosworthy, B. (2003). The bloody crucible of courage: Fighting methods and combat experience of the Civil War (754p). New York: Caroll and Graf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodes, R. (1887). Official Report included in: The War of the Rebellion: A compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate Armies, v. XIX, Part I (pp. 1036–1038).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sears, S. W. (1983). Landscape turned red: The battle of Antietam (431p) New Haven: Ticknor and Fields.

    Google Scholar 

  • Southworth, C. S., & Brezinski, D. K. (1996). Geology of the Harpers Ferry Quadrangle, Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia. U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Southworth, S., & Denenny. (2006). Geologic Map of the National Parks in the National Capital Region, Washington, D.C., Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia. Reston: United States Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2005-1331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Southworth, S., Brezinski, D. K., Orndorff, R. C., Repetski, J. E., & Denenny D. M. (2008) Geology of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park and Potomac River corridor, District of Columbia, Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper (1691, 144p).

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D. I. (1887). With burnside at Antietam. In Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, The Century Company (Vol. 2, pp. 661–662).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zax, D. (2009). Civil War geology. Special report. Retrieved February 21, 2018, from Smithsonian.com, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/civil-war-geology-123489220/

Further Reading

  • Catton, B. (1960). The American Heritage Picture History of the Civil War (630p). New York: American Heritage Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debelius, M. (1996). Illustrated Atlas of the Civil War (320p). Alexandria: Time Life Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, J. M. (1988). Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (905p). New York: Ballantine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nosworthy, B. (2003). The bloody crucible of courage: Fighting methods and combat experience of the Civil War (753p). New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest, J. M. (1989). Antietam: The soldiers’ battle (394p). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hippensteel, S. (2019). Antietam. In: Rocks and Rifles. Advances in Military Geosciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00877-2_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics