Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
A few days ago there were posts about the "bloodiest day in American history" being Antietam. Look up Antietam on Google and you'll see the phrase "bloodiest day in American history" thousands of times.
I've heard this so many times growing up, but always thought that it was misleading. While I guess technically it was the "bloodiest" because there were more than 25,000 wounded, it did not result in the most casualties. In fact, the battle that resulted in the most casualties was the Battle of Cold Harbor, in which 7,000 federal troops and 1,500 Confederate troops were killed. In Antietam, only 2,500 union troops and 1,550 confederates were killed.
To read about Cold Harbor, click the link:
http://www.usahistory.com/wars/coldharb.htm
For Antietam:
http://www.nps.gov/anti/casualty.htm
I know that no one really cares, it's just always bothered me that Antietam was called the bloodiest, because most people associate that with the deadliest, which it by far was not.
I've heard this so many times growing up, but always thought that it was misleading. While I guess technically it was the "bloodiest" because there were more than 25,000 wounded, it did not result in the most casualties. In fact, the battle that resulted in the most casualties was the Battle of Cold Harbor, in which 7,000 federal troops and 1,500 Confederate troops were killed. In Antietam, only 2,500 union troops and 1,550 confederates were killed.
To read about Cold Harbor, click the link:
http://www.usahistory.com/wars/coldharb.htm
For Antietam:
http://www.nps.gov/anti/casualty.htm
I know that no one really cares, it's just always bothered me that Antietam was called the bloodiest, because most people associate that with the deadliest, which it by far was not.
