Magruder's Unredacted Yorktown Report: The War Department Deleted References to the Retreat of the 15th NC at Dam No. 1

Belfoured said:

And where is Magruder's September 5 express, two-paragraph statement regarding his revisions - "substitut[ing]" the "accompanying correct and complete copy" for the "defective copy of my report and all additions since furnished by me in your office" which he requests "be withdrawn", and explaining why he made the revisions [OR XI Part 1 at 404-405]? That is deliberately obscured by the smoke screen being created through multiple posts.

Click to expand...

Actually a good point. Thank you.

lelliott19 said:

I believe I already provided the statement from the Troup Artillery guys who were there? They clearly state that only two guns of the Troup artillery were positioned at Dam No 1 - Lt. Ed Lumpkin in charge of one and Lt. A Frank Pope in charge of the other. The other 2 pieces were not at Dam No 1. One was at Wynne's Mill and the other was at Dam No. 2.

You are correct that Pope's gun was the only one capable of any effect. In fact, it was Pope's gun that landed a shell in the lap of McClellan's engineer.

Click to expand...

That wasn't well established. The various statements are confused and contradictory, even within the OR.

lelliott19 said:

I do give credence to Eli Pinson Landers (H/16GA) account. Landers never says the 15NC ran away. Where in Landers' account do you read it to mean the 15th NC ran away? His account closely matches Goode Bryan's but Landers provides some details about what the guys around him did. Stuff that Bryan clearly wouldn't have included in his brief report. Landers says:

We [H/16GA] was about half a mile from the line when the firing commenced. We all went in double quick to the rescue of our brothers [recall that D/16GA had abandoned the rifle pits] and when we got there the enemy was nearly to our breastworks, in fact they had part of them in possession and we run in an open fire on them. We did not have time to organize our regiment. We all run in and shot when we had the chance and never formed no line. If a man could get behind a tree it was alright. Some of the boys never fired a gun. Some lay behind logs as close to the ground as young rabbits until the battle was over. One or two of our company (H/16GA) ran back to camp but as for my part I thought I would stay until the fun was over. There was the 7th, 8th, 11th, and 16th Georgia regiments engaged in the fight, along with the 5th [15th] North Carolina and a Louisiana Regiment [2 companies of 2LA]. The Yankees made the North Carolina regiment retreat from their own breastworks and the Yanks took it but in come our 7th Georgia brothers and their colonel immediately ordered a charge and the brave boys obeyed the command with the greatest applause and hollering and retook the battery without the loss of a man with one or two wounded. The fight lasted till about dark when the enemy retired.​

Click to expand...

Ahem, how does this say the 15th NC didn't retreat?

"The Yankees made the North Carolina regiment retreat from their own breastworks and the Yanks took it but in come our 7th Georgia brothers and their colonel immediately ordered a charge and the brave boys obeyed the command with the greatest applause and hollering and retook the battery without the loss of a man with one or two wounded."

lelliott19 said:

Landers also says a guy in "Capt. Sketton's" company was killed. John H Skelton commanded company C. The guy from C who was killed was a 26 yo Sgt. from Hartwell, GA. He left a wife but no children.

Click to expand...

Sgt Masters. He is the only casualty in the 16th GA by their roster.

lelliott19 said:

V.A.S.P was Virgil A S Parks. He was the reliable 17th GA correspondent of the Savannah Republican. The 17th GA wasn't engaged and none of Toombs' brigade arrived until after everything was over. They assumed a position behind the batteries. I won't go through each of the sources you named.... and I won't repeat why I think the alteration of Magruder's report is not a significant factor.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

All of those sources say the 15th NC ran away, BTW...

67th Tigers said:

Ahem, how does this say the 15th NC didn't retreat?

"The Yankees made the North Carolina regiment retreat from their own breastworks and the Yanks took it but in come our 7th Georgia brothers and their colonel immediately ordered a charge and the brave boys obeyed the command with the greatest applause and hollering and retook the battery without the loss of a man with one or two wounded."

Click to expand...

It means the writer is a little confused as to how the action started. The 15th NC were not in their breastworks.

Not surprised you'd ignore the previous sentence, "There was the 7th, 8th, 11th, and 16th Georgia regiments engaged in the fight, along with the 5th [15th] North Carolina and a Louisiana Regiment [2 companies of 2LA]."

67th Tigers said:

All of those sources say the 15th NC ran away, BTW...

Click to expand...

Was VASP an eyewitness? Laura indicates that his regiment was not there.

67th Tigers said:

Actually a good point. Thank you.

Click to expand...

It's in the OR. You're welcome.

Of course, that must be more actual fraud by the WD, whose unwavering mission to falsify reports regarding one regiment prevented it from being distracted by the ANV's trivial incursion into Maryland. That laser focus is probably based on some Col. Blimp military treatise you clutch as gospel ...

DanSBHawk said:

It means the writer is a little confused as to how the action started. The 15th NC were not in their breastworks.

Not surprised you'd ignore the previous sentence, "There was the 7th, 8th, 11th, and 16th Georgia regiments engaged in the fight, along with the 5th [15th] North Carolina and a Louisiana Regiment [2 companies of 2LA]."

Click to expand...

Of course it does. The 15th NC had to be there to run away in the first place...

67th Tigers said:

Of course it does. The 15th NC had to be there to run away in the first place...

Click to expand...

You're claiming that the 15th NC was in their breastworks when the 3rd Vermont crossed?

DanSBHawk said:

It means the writer is a little confused as to how the action started. The 15th NC were not in their breastworks.

Not surprised you'd ignore the previous sentence, "There was the 7th, 8th, 11th, and 16th Georgia regiments engaged in the fight, along with the 5th [15th] North Carolina and a Louisiana Regiment [2 companies of 2LA]."

Click to expand...

An interesting project would be compiling all of the poster's numerous assertions about the 15th NC on April 16 that conflict with each other. That's why those claims appear in multiple threads and why he starts new threads with the next claim. It's called intellectual grifting. It might even work if CWT members weren't too smart to fall for this shell game.

DanSBHawk said:

You're claiming that the 15th NC was in their breastworks when the 3rd Vermont crossed?

Click to expand...

It's like the two companies of the 3rd Vermont that we've been told in other threads didn't make it across whose members thought they did make it across. What would they know ...

67th Tigers said:

Ahem, how does this say the 15th NC didn't retreat?

"The Yankees made the North Carolina regiment retreat from their own breastworks and the Yanks took it but in come our 7th Georgia brothers and their colonel immediately ordered a charge and the brave boys obeyed the command with the greatest applause and hollering and retook the battery without the loss of a man with one or two wounded."

Click to expand...

Ahem, who here is saying the 15th North Carolina didn't retreat? This sentence is Landers' recap (or summary) of the action he has described in the preceeding sentences. In the previous sentence he lists the 15NC alongside the 16GA, 7GA and 2LA. Everyone knows the regiments and everyone knows the 15NC fell back. You are arguing that they ran away. And misinterpreting those specific words across multiple sources. Retreating or falling back is not the same thing as running away.

X-referencing a variety of primary sources clearly shows the 15NC rallied alongside the 16GA, 7GA, and the two companies of the 2LA. The 8GA arrived soon after the 7GA. The Vermonters retreated back across the Warwick.

Correctly interpreting sources requires an examination of context and weighting, based on who actually witnessed the events. To get a good understanding, you can't just read words and treat an individual account as "the gospel." It's important to interpret a variety of primary sources, be familiar with the actual ground, and interpret the sources on the ground. To understand what actually happened, you have to realize who would know what and weight sources accordingly.

Landers wouldn't have known what happened before he arrived. So anything he says about what happened before he got there is just his understanding of someone else's version. Nobody on the other side of the Warwick would have known how many regiments were over there, the order of arrival, let alone what regiments they were. It seems even Landers has conflated the two attempts and the regiments involved -- and he was there.

67th Tigers said:

"The Yankees made the North Carolina regiment retreat from their own breastworks and the Yanks took it but in come our 7th Georgia brothers and their colonel immediately ordered a charge and the brave boys obeyed the command with the greatest applause and hollering and retook the battery without the loss of a man with one or two wounded."

Click to expand...

Hyper literal reading of Landers (or any other source, as you seem to do) can result in incorrect interpetation. For example:

• Landers says the Confederates "retook the battery." The only way this could be accurate is if the portion of the works occupied by Vermonters was the part right at the battery. That was where the 2LA should have been and nobody else says anything about the 2LA falling back - so that can not be what he meant.
• Landers also says the 8GA was involved in repulsing the 3VT. Everyone else says it was all but over by the time the 8GA arrived. Including guys in the 8GA.
• The 11GA got there even later but Landers says the 11GA was involved in repulsing the 3VT. The 11GA was only involved in disrupting the second later attempt.
• Landers also says it was "about dark" when it ended - conflating the 3VT assault with the second attempt by the 6VT.

Some people read one source and take it 100% literally. Imagine if I interpreted Eli Landers 100% literally and decided he was 100% accurate. Imagine if I asserted that the 2LA was actually the regiment that faltered and that the 3VT occupied their works at the battery. A literal interpretation of Landers account about retaking the battery makes it possible to interpret it that way. But reading other sources shows that can't be what Landers actually meant.

DanSBHawk said:

It means the writer is a little confused as to how the action started. The 15th NC were not in their breastworks.

Click to expand...

Landers was 1/2 mile away. He couldn't have witnessed what happend at the start from 1/2 mile away.

lelliott19 said:

Ahem, who here is saying the 15th North Carolina didn't retreat?

Click to expand...

Dan is, loudly and repeatedly. He's previously dismissed the voluminous accounts of them retreating, and now is arguing that they "didn't really retreat."

lelliott19 said:

This sentence is Landers' recap (or summary) of the action he has described in the preceeding sentences. In the previous sentence he lists the 15NC alongside the 16GA, 7GA and 2LA. Everyone knows the regiments and everyone knows the 15NC fell back. You are arguing that they ran away. And misinterpreting those specific words across multiple sources. Retreating or falling back is not the same thing as running away.

Click to expand...

Well, in this case they are. There was no marching off the field in good order was there? Reports tend to elide over these things, and this entire thread was started because Magruder originally explicitly reported that McKinney's death threw the 15th NC into confusion, and they then retreated, with the 7th GA charging through the retreating 15th NC and retaking the trenches. Someone objected, and he toned it down to elide over the topic.

lelliott19 said:

X-referencing a variety of primary sources clearly shows the 15NC rallied alongside the 16GA, 7GA, and the two companies of the 2LA. The 8GA arrived soon after the 7GA. The Vermonters retreated back across the Warwick.

Click to expand...

Mostly sources agree that the 15th NC ran very early in the engagement, and cross-reference Ihrie vs the others should lead to the conclusion that Ihrie's account is completely at odds with the rest. Some say they were rallied in the rear sometime after the 7th and 8th GA pushed the Vermonters back across the river. The two sources you've been using to claim the 15th NC stood and fought are:

1. Ihrie's report - he claims the 15th NC did all of the fighting, and stood in the open for two hours trading volleys at close range (elsewhere this is given as 40 paces - about 30 yards) with a superior enemy force, and the 7th GA didn't arrive until 1700, by which point the Vermonters were retreating. Let's not address the fantastical claims of them stealing the 7th GA's Color to explain why it was those Colors in the trenches. Ihrie's report strongly suggests he was not present, and he's simply repeating what he was told.
2. Dwinnell's account of the 7th and 8th GA being sent to the front to support the 15th NC, and as he approached he saw some troops "peppering" the Vermonters, which he identified as the 5th NC (but by cross-referencing is likely the 2nd LA). He says the enemy had possession of the trenches, and the 7th GA immediately charged them and took possession of them.

Ihrie's account is so at odds with all others, and so fantastical, that it cannot be considered reliable. Dwinnell is likely reporting what he saw, but is likely a misidentification. He states outright that the 15th NC's trenches were in the possession of the enemy.

Incidently, Dwinnell described the entrenchments as 2.5 feet across at the base. They were indeed simple rifle trenches for a single rank. Where are all the troops supposed to stack up in them?

lelliott19 said:

Correctly interpreting sources requires an examination of context and weighting, based on who actually witnessed the events. To get a good understanding, you can't just read words and treat an individual account as "the gospel." It's important to interpret a variety of primary sources, be familiar with the actual ground, and interpret the sources on the ground. To understand what actually happened, you have to realize who would know what and weight sources accordingly.

Click to expand...

Exactly. What you should not do is weight sources based upon if you want them to be true or not. When a source is fantastical and broadly contradicted by everyone else (Ihrie), one must reject it. One must also consider whether the source could possibly have known what he relates; Dwinnell had no way of identifying the 15th NC, and appears simply to have assume the troops he saw were the 15th NC.

lelliott19 said:

Landers wouldn't have known what happened before he arrived. So anything he says about what happened before he got there is just his understanding of someone else's version. Nobody on the other side of the Warwick would have known how many regiments were over there, the order of arrival, let alone what regiments they were. It seems even Landers has conflated the two attempts and the regiments involved -- and he was there.

Hyper literal reading of Landers (or any other source, as you seem to do) can result in incorrect interpetation. For example:

• Landers says the Confederates "retook the battery." The only way this could be accurate is if the portion of the works occupied by Vermonters was the part right at the battery. That was where the 2LA should have been and nobody else says anything about the 2LA falling back - so that can not be what he meant.
• Landers also says the 8GA was involved in repulsing the 3VT. Everyone else says it was all but over by the time the 8GA arrived. Including guys in the 8GA.
• The 11GA got there even later but Landers says the 11GA was involved in repulsing the 3VT. The 11GA was only involved in disrupting the second later attempt.
• Landers also says it was "about dark" when it ended - conflating the 3VT assault with the second attempt by the 6VT.

Some people read one source and take it 100% literally. Imagine if I interpreted Eli Landers 100% literally and decided he was 100% accurate. Imagine if I asserted that the 2LA was actually the regiment that faltered and that the 3VT occupied their works at the battery. A literal interpretation of Landers account about retaking the battery makes it possible to interpret it that way. But reading other sources shows that can't be what Landers actually meant.

Click to expand...

The account runs:

• At about 3 o'clock the enemy ran in the pickets.
• The 16th GA has half-a-mile from where the firing was
• His company double-quicked (in disorder, not an organised company) towards the scene, and on arriving the enemy were almost at the breastworks, and in fact had part of them
• They ran in and shot whenever they had the chance, the men taking position behind trees, logs etc. and firing (or perhaps "peppering" the enemy)
• He gives a general statement of the regiments engaged during the day - the 7th, 8th, 11th and 16th GA, the 15th NC and a LA regiment
• The North Carolina regiment retreated, but the 7th GA came up, charged and retook the trenches
• The fight continued until sundown, with the fight now being across the river, with the "brave rascals" making another attempt to cross it later

Nothing in this account contradicts the consensus that the 15th NC retreated and abandoned their position, and the 7th GA retook it.

PS: I think it's telling that Lander's statement that the 15th NC retreated is dismissed because he came from half-a-mile away, but Dwinnell's identification of the 15th NC is accepted despite him coming from (according to him) a mile distant. It's almost like the reliability of a statement is based upon whether it conforms to your biases or not...

67th Tigers said:

Dan is, loudly and repeatedly. He's previously dismissed the voluminous accounts of them retreating, and now is arguing that they "didn't really retreat."



Well, in this case they are. There was no marching off the field in good order was there? Reports tend to elide over these things, and this entire thread was started because Magruder originally explicitly reported that McKinney's death threw the 15th NC into confusion, and they then retreated, with the 7th GA charging through the retreating 15th NC and retaking the trenches. Someone objected, and he toned it down to elide over the topic.



Mostly sources agree that the 15th NC ran very early in the engagement, and cross-reference Ihrie vs the others should lead to the conclusion that Ihrie's account is completely at odds with the rest. Some say they were rallied in the rear sometime after the 7th and 8th GA pushed the Vermonters back across the river. The two sources you've been using to claim the 15th NC stood and fought are:

1. Ihrie's report - he claims the 15th NC did all of the fighting, and stood in the open for two hours trading volleys at close range (elsewhere this is given as 40 paces - about 30 yards) with a superior enemy force, and the 7th GA didn't arrive until 1700, by which point the Vermonters were retreating. Let's not address the fantastical claims of them stealing the 7th GA's Color to explain why it was those Colors in the trenches. Ihrie's report strongly suggests he was not present, and he's simply repeating what he was told.
2. Dwinnell's account of the 7th and 8th GA being sent to the front to support the 15th NC, and as he approached he saw some troops "peppering" the Vermonters, which he identified as the 5th NC (but by cross-referencing is likely the 2nd LA). He says the enemy had possession of the trenches, and the 7th GA immediately charged them and took possession of them.

Ihrie's account is so at odds with all others, and so fantastical, that it cannot be considered reliable. Dwinnell is likely reporting what he saw, but is likely a misidentification. He states outright that the 15th NC's trenches were in the possession of the enemy.

Incidently, Dwinnell described the entrenchments as 2.5 feet across at the base. They were indeed simple rifle trenches for a single rank. Where are all the troops supposed to stack up in them?




Exactly. What you should not do is weight sources based upon if you want them to be true or not. When a source is fantastical and broadly contradicted by everyone else (Ihrie), one must reject it. One must also consider whether the source could possibly have known what he relates; Dwinnell had no way of identifying the 15th NC, and appears simply to have assume the troops he saw were the 15th NC.



The account runs:

• At about 3 o'clock the enemy ran in the pickets.
• The 16th GA has half-a-mile from where the firing was
• His company double-quicked (in disorder, not an organised company) towards the scene, and on arriving the enemy were almost at the breastworks, and in fact had part of them
• They ran in and shot whenever they had the chance, the men taking position behind trees, logs etc. and firing (or perhaps "peppering" the enemy)
• He gives a general statement of the regiments engaged during the day - the 7th, 8th, 11th and 16th GA, the 15th NC and a LA regiment
• The North Carolina regiment retreated, but the 7th GA came up, charged and retook the trenches
• The fight continued until sundown, with the fight now being across the river, with the "brave rascals" making another attempt to cross it later

Nothing in this account contradicts the consensus that the 15th NC retreated and abandoned their position, and the 7th GA retook it.

Click to expand...

No. It's you who has been playing games. You've claimed that the 15th NC "ran" and took no further part. You've claimed that some members ran with tools they were using to build an entrenchment, not weapons. You've claimed - as we know - that they never even got involved in the fighting because they "ran" as McKinney was trying to get them in line. You've claimed that the references in Magruder's, McLaws', Cobb's, Levy's, and Bryan's reports are fabrications by the War Department implementing some bizarre conspiracy four months after the fact to clear a single regiment, with absolutely no evidence. You've made countless varying and contradictory posts about the 15th NC's actions which you try to obscure by repetitively starting new threads and you simply disregard your earlier conflicting posts.

All examples that you have no understanding of the "historical method" as it's used routinely by scholars who have actually been published by publishers who use a review process.

lelliott19 said:

Landers was 1/2 mile away. He couldn't have witnessed what happend at the start from 1/2 mile away.

Click to expand...

As anyone who has been published by a reputable publisher in this area knows, making definitive conclusions about the details of what happened, timings, etc. for a given event based on primary sources is challenging, especially where the sources are participants in lower ranks of this unit or that unit whose account may be from a limited perspective, etc. That's entirely aside from the application of absurd conspiracy theories regarding the wholesale fabrication of records with literally no evidence and in defiance of common sense. No reputable publisher would regard that as remotely serious scholarship.

67th Tigers said:

Dan is, loudly and repeatedly. He's previously dismissed the voluminous accounts of them retreating, and now is arguing that they "didn't really retreat."

Mostly sources agree that the 15th NC ran very early in the engagement, and cross-reference Ihrie vs the others should lead to the conclusion that Ihrie's account is completely at odds with the rest.

Click to expand...

I have loudly and repeatedly said exactly what McLaws and Cobb and Levy said - The 15th NC suffered a temporary falling back and then retook their positions.

None of the confederate reports claim that the 15th NC ran away and was no longer involved in the fighting.

DanSBHawk said:

I have loudly and repeatedly said exactly what McLaws and Cobb and Levy said - The 15th NC suffered a temporary falling back and then retook their positions.

None of the confederate reports claim that the 15th NC ran away and was no longer involved in the fighting.

Click to expand...

Most of them say the 15th NC fell back, and the 7th GA took their positions instead. The 15th NC then simply disappears from the accounts, for some reason...

Moreover, vast swathes of reports from the men on the ground saw the 15th NC running away, and the 7th GA coming up to take their positions, except you ignore them.

So whilst no report saw the 15th NC wasn't rallied, not a single one has them returning to the front. It's the 7th GA that's fighting in their place.

67th Tigers said:

Most of them say the 15th NC fell back, and the 7th GA took their positions instead. The 15th NC then simply disappears from the accounts, for some reason...

Moreover, vast swathes of reports from the men on the ground saw the 15th NC running away, and the 7th GA coming up to take their positions, except you ignore them.

So whilst no report saw the 15th NC wasn't rallied, not a single one has them returning to the front. It's the 7th GA that's fighting in their place.

Click to expand...

Not a single confederate report says the 7th GA took their positions.

67th Tigers said:

Most of them say the 15th NC fell back, and the 7th GA took their positions instead. The 15th NC then simply disappears from the accounts, for some reason...

Moreover, vast swathes of reports from the men on the ground saw the 15th NC running away, and the 7th GA coming up to take their positions, except you ignore them.

So whilst no report saw the 15th NC wasn't rallied, not a single one has them returning to the front. It's the 7th GA that's fighting in their place.

Click to expand...

"So whilst no report saw the 15th NC wasn't rallied, not a single one has them returning to the front. It's the 7th GA that's fighting in their place."

So now your newest iteration is that they were "rallied". You just keep revising your claims as if the prior versions never existed. You can't even settle on a consistent conclusion, distorted as it is. Who "rallied" them and where?

Second, your assertion is directly inconsistent with Magruder, Cobb and Bryan. You only get around that with your absurd Department-wide conspiracy months after the battle to falsify those reports.