http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-antietam-controversial-crossing-on-burnsides-bridge.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Fri, 24 May 2013 21:00:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-antietam-controversial-crossing-on-burnsides-bridge.htm#comment-821055 Wading Antietam Creek - The Edge of the American West - The Chronicle of Higher Education Sat, 13 Oct 2012 19:35:06 +0000 #comment-821055 [...] time getting across Antietam Creek. In particular, they found it difficult to rush successfully the Lower Bridge, and were held up for several hours by a minimal Confederate force on the heights overhead. But, [...] [...] time getting across Antietam Creek. In particular, they found it difficult to rush successfully the Lower Bridge, and were held up for several hours by a minimal Confederate force on the heights overhead. But, [...]

]]> http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-antietam-controversial-crossing-on-burnsides-bridge.htm#comment-815470 Matthew In Wisconsin Fri, 10 Aug 2012 23:58:00 +0000 #comment-815470 I've waded in that creek; just over knee deep. I was not there in 1862. But you'll never convince me that Antietam Creek could not have been forded at a multitude of points by a full grown man. If fact, I'd say that a man could cross that creek at ANYPONT and kept his ammo dry. I have never seen a photo of the water higher than it was the day I was there. And 1862 was suppose to be a very dry summer. I've waded in that creek; just over knee deep. I was not there in 1862. But you'll never convince me that Antietam Creek could not have been forded at a multitude of points by a full grown man. If fact, I'd say that a man could cross that creek at ANYPONT and kept his ammo dry. I have never seen a photo of the water higher than it was the day I was there. And 1862 was suppose to be a very dry summer.

]]> http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-antietam-controversial-crossing-on-burnsides-bridge.htm#comment-790887 J. McConnell Thu, 01 Mar 2012 21:27:48 +0000 #comment-790887 Statistical data on the water levels for Antietam Creek, just downstream from the bridge, are available online at this site: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/md/nwis/uv/?site_no=01619500. You can see for yourself that the water levels vary over the course of the year, but the usual depth is at a around 3 feet, and during heavy rains is over 5 feet deep. The September mean discharge is 171 cubic-feet/second from 1930 until now. A quick review of the historic actual guage height measurements reveals a minimum of just over 2 feet, and a normal level of over 3 feet. That level, combined with steep banks would make crossing it on foot, particularly under fire, quite challenging. Statistical data on the water levels for Antietam Creek, just downstream from the bridge, are available online at this site: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/md/nwis/uv/?site_no=01619500. You can see for yourself that the water levels vary over the course of the year, but the usual depth is at a around 3 feet, and during heavy rains is over 5 feet deep. The September mean discharge is 171 cubic-feet/second from 1930 until now. A quick review of the historic actual guage height measurements reveals a minimum of just over 2 feet, and a normal level of over 3 feet. That level, combined with steep banks would make crossing it on foot, particularly under fire, quite challenging.

]]> http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-antietam-controversial-crossing-on-burnsides-bridge.htm#comment-331886 War Forever More | Mantiq al-Tayr Sun, 05 Sep 2010 18:11:28 +0000 #comment-331886 [...] 1940 and some of Douglas’ accounts of what took place during the war have become a cause for controversy. But his book, I Rode With Stonewall, has many things in it that ring true and which are expressed [...] [...] 1940 and some of Douglas' accounts of what took place during the war have become a cause for controversy. But his book, I Rode With Stonewall, has many things in it that ring true and which are expressed [...]

]]> http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-antietam-controversial-crossing-on-burnsides-bridge.htm#comment-81359 J. Armbruster Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:28:16 +0000 #comment-81359 It may be that the water just 20 feet upstream from the bridge was too deep on that day, but I have a picture of my brother standing knee deep in the creek when we visited and I don't think there was a drought that year. If they'd had any sense they could easily have found better ways. Sure, the steam depths and bottom could have changed, but that means they would have changed up and down stream too and any little creek has it's numerous crossings. It may be that the water just 20 feet upstream from the bridge was too deep on that day, but I have a picture of my brother standing knee deep in the creek when we visited and I don't think there was a drought that year. If they'd had any sense they could easily have found better ways. Sure, the steam depths and bottom could have changed, but that means they would have changed up and down stream too and any little creek has it's numerous crossings.

]]> http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-antietam-controversial-crossing-on-burnsides-bridge.htm#comment-76625 BURNSIDES BRIDGE « DEAD MEN’S TALES Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:22:35 +0000 #comment-76625 [...] Burnside’s Bridge played a key role in the Battle of Antietam during the American Civil War. It is named after Major General Ambrose Burnside. The bridge is 125 feet long, 12 foot wide, and has three arches. The bridge spans the Antietam Creek. It was intended to move frieght, animals, and people to Sharpsburg, Maryland. [...] [...] Burnside's Bridge played a key role in the Battle of Antietam during the American Civil War. It is named after Major General Ambrose Burnside. The bridge is 125 feet long, 12 foot wide, and has three arches. The bridge spans the Antietam Creek. It was intended to move frieght, animals, and people to Sharpsburg, Maryland. [...]

]]>