Fort Macon NC004
1862-03-23 to 1862-04-26 · NC · Burnside's North Carolina Expedition [February-June 1862] · frozen result: Union · NPS summary (as listed)
In late March, Maj. Gen. Ambrose E. Burnside's army advanced on Fort Macon, a third system casemated masonry fort that commanded the channel to Beaufort, 35 miles southeast of New Berne. The Union force invested the fort with siege works and, on April 26, opened an accurate fire on the fort, which soon breached the masonry walls. Within a few hours the fort's scarp began to collapse, and the Confederates hoisted a white flag. This action demonstrated the inadequacy of masonry forts against large-bore, rifled artillery.
Command responsibility (ledger v2)
US: John G. Parke
Grade A under rule 2; echelon unknown. superior_directing
A cited passage states the command. Burnside decided the investment and combined attack and was present to summon the surrender (superior_directing: Burnside).
Brigadier Generalarnold-cwsac-commanders, battle NC004, belligerent US, fullname John G. Parke; column rank · snapshot
6c587c298717…General Parke was an accom- plished engineer, and to him the work of besieging the fort by land w^as entrusted.woodbury-burnside-selections-v1 · snapshot
ad7a423cadac…Confederate: Moses J. White
Grade A under rule 2; echelon detachment_or_post.
A cited passage states the command (Woodbury: White marched out his command and surrendered the fort he had defended). Woodbury's 'Colonel' differs from the listed 'Lieutenant Colonel'; identity is not in doubt.
Lieutenant Colonelarnold-cwsac-commanders, battle NC004, belligerent Confederate, fullname Moses J. White; column rank · snapshot
6c587c298717…Colonel White hung out the white flag, obtained honorable terms of capitula- tion, marched out his command, and surrendered to General Parke the fort which he had so persistently defended.woodbury-burnside-selections-v1 · snapshot
ad7a423cadac…Side strength (ledger v3)
US: grade D: no usable figure (modelled in the rating runs)
whole_engagement_leakage
Confederate: grade B, 500 (430–580)
single_inputwhole_engagement_leakage
| Input | Class | Printed | Basis | Bound | Codes | Passage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cs-woodbury | B | 500 | unknown | dossier claim garrison-estimate-and-display |
Dossier claims
Draft dossier, revision . Claims are extraction records with their quoted passages, not historical adjudication. JSON
information
unknownunresolved
No original engineering survey, surrender correspondence, intelligence report or dated gun-condition record was inspected. Woodbury’s retrospective account does not establish either commander’s full knowledge state.
logistics
supportedunresolved Woodbury reports delay from destruction of a railroad bridge, followed by arrival of ordnance and siege material after its completion.
The bridge and siege preparation are attributed operational processes, not a readiness index or a commander effect estimate.
Some delay had been experienced by the destruction of the railroad bridge.woodbury-burnside-selections-v1, p.72, siege supply (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
ad7a423cadac…large quantities of ord- nance stores and siege material began to arrive from Newbern.woodbury-burnside-selections-v1, p.72, same passage (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
ad7a423cadac…objectives
supportedunresolved Woodbury says Burnside decided on complete investment and a combined land and sea attack to force surrender.
Attributed plan, not an inspected original instruction. Naval participation limits in the same source remain visible and success is not counted again as campaign contribution.
General Burnside therefore decided to make a com- plete investment of the fort, and, by a combined attack by land and sea, force its surrender.woodbury-burnside-selections-v1, pp.71–72, investment (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
ad7a423cadac…outcome
disputedpost_outcome NPS dates opening fire to April 26, while Woodbury dates Parke opening his guns to the morning of April 25. Woodbury’s later surrender-day numeral appears in OCR as 23th.
Preserve the disagreement and garbled numeral without silently repairing OCR or changing the frozen March 23–April 26 interval. No precise surrender clock is established.
Oh the morning of the 25th, General Parke opened his guns on the fort.woodbury-burnside-selections-v1, p.73, bombardment (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
ad7a423cadac…On the morning of the 23th, therefore, Colonel White hung out the white flagwoodbury-burnside-selections-v1, p.74, surrender (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
ad7a423cadac…supportedpost_outcome The frozen row and live NPS page record a Union victory.
Same source family, not independent corroboration or a causal effect. Retain the frozen engagement interval and do not add a separate score for later occupation or campaign consequences.
disputedpost_outcome The frozen table gives 490 total (US 10; CS 480); the live NPS table displays 442 total (US 3; CS 439;).
These versions remain distinct. No inspected return reconciles the totals, category definitions or reporting boundaries. Casualties are not opening strength or a predictor; a displayed zero is not evidence of no losses.
490 total (US 10; CS 480)arnold-cwsac-battles, battle NC004; column casualties_text · snapshot
952b5d08402a…responsibility
supportedunresolved Woodbury assigns the land siege to Parke and identifies White as the defending commandant.
Source-assigned roles, not reputation-based validation or automatic allocation of all credit. Lockwood’s naval role remains in the source context.
General Parke was an accom- plished engineer, and to him the work of besieging the fort by land w^as entrusted.woodbury-burnside-selections-v1, p.72, siege command (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
ad7a423cadac…strength
disputedunresolved Woodbury describes a garrison of about five hundred men; the live NPS table displays zero for both sides.
An approximate garrison estimate, not a dated opening return or complete opposing pair. The live zero does not disprove that troops were present.
garrisoned by a battalion of about five hundred men.woodbury-burnside-selections-v1, p.71, opening (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
ad7a423cadac…unknownunresolved
No inspected return establishes matched opening populations. The frozen side-specific numerical bounds are blank; live zeros are not measured absence of troops. Retrospective formations, gun crews, garrisons, prisoners and troops engaged must not be interchanged.
terrain
supportedunresolved NPS describes a masonry fort commanding the channel to Beaufort; Woodbury describes low sand ridges sheltering siege work.
Attributed physical context only. Siege positions may reflect command preparation, so no inherited/created classification is admitted.
a third system casemated masonry fort that commanded the channel to Beaufortnps-nc004-v1, Description · snapshot
310cebdf444c…long, low ridges of sand, behind which the troops could work almost unmolestedwoodbury-burnside-selections-v1, p.72, siege works (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
ad7a423cadac…Open questions
- Original orders, personnel returns, contemporary intelligence and source disputes remain deferred after the bounded shared-history follow-up. OCR has not been checked against print.
- Keep opening, moving, engaged, garrison and captured populations distinct; do not use live zero displays as numerical evidence.
- Broader blockade, occupation and later operations remain campaign context, not additional independent wins or automatic commander credit.