Swift Creek VA050

supportedunresolved Butler told the Secretary of War on May 9 that Kautz's cutting of the railroads had left a large portion of Beauregard's command to the south and that Grant would not be troubled with further reinforcements from it. Humphreys says the Confederate order and time of arrival of Beauregard's troops is not stated anywhere he could find.

Butler's belief as reported, contradicted by the later arrivals Humphreys describes; not proof of what either side knew.

supportedunresolved Humphreys says Butler's force destroyed about six miles of the Richmond and Petersburg Railroad between Swift Creek and Chester Station on May 9; Butler's telegram says he had ordered up supplies and could hold his position with proper supplies. NPS says Butler seemed content to tear up the tracks.

Statements about the objective and supply, not a transport or supply return.

supportedunresolved Humphreys says Gillmore and Smith proposed on the evening of May 9 to bridge the Appomattox and take Petersburg, and that Butler disapproved, saying Kautz was destroying those roads and the Danville railroad must be destroyed near Richmond. NPS calls May 9 a thrust toward Petersburg.

Stated plans and a rejected proposal from an interested history; the proposal came after the day's fighting.

disputedpost_outcome The frozen result reads Inconclusive and the live result Indecisive. NPS says a premature Confederate attack at Arrowfield Church was driven back with heavy losses but not followed up, and that the Fort Clifton gunboats were driven off. Butler's May 9 telegram claims a severe and well-contested fight in which he whipped the enemy and took many prisoners.

Retain the original result and engagement interval; later movements and campaign contribution are different measures. No new probabilities or individual causal credit. Butler's claim and the recorded inconclusive result are kept separately.

disputedpost_outcome The frozen casualty text reads 990 total; the live field reads zero. Butler's telegram gives no count.

Original casualty returns were not inspected; preserve totals, categories, cutoffs and differences. No canonical reconciliation or casualty-based opening count; related actions must not be added without resolving population overlap. Hagood's May 9 losses appear only in his garbled casualty return, which was not selected.

supportedunresolved Butler's telegram claims he had whipped the portion of Beauregard's force that reached Petersburg; Humphreys attributes the rejection of the Petersburg proposal to Butler. The frozen commanders are Major General Butler (US) and General Beauregard (CS); the live page gives Beauregard as Brigadier General, and NPS names Bushrod Johnson's division as the opponent.

Direction attributed as stated; the live rank is not adopted. Beauregard's inspected report begins on May 16 and does not cover May 9. No listed commander receives automatic sole credit.

unknownunresolved

No inspected return establishes matched personnel at a common opening boundary. The frozen side-specific numerical strength bounds are blank (missing_numeric_strength). No figure in this pass is adopted as a simultaneous opening force.

disputedunresolved The frozen force field reads 'Divisions' and the live field zero. Humphreys says Butler moved out on May 9 with a large part of his command under Gillmore and Smith, and gives the army's present-for-duty returns (1,329 officers and 30,543 enlisted infantry; Kautz's 97 officers and 2,804 cavalry). Butler's May 9 telegram cites 1,700 cavalry advanced up the Peninsula and Kautz's 3,000 cavalry from Suffolk.

Army-wide returns and cavalry figures for forces not engaged at Swift Creek; no Confederate figure for May 9 was inspected. None is adopted as a matched opening strength; live zeros are not measured absence.

supportedinherited Humphreys says the enemy held the south bank of Swift Creek, which was not fordable and whose bridges were defended; NPS says Hinks's division struggled through marshy ground toward Fort Clifton.

The creek and marsh predate the engagement; the defence of the crossings is not tagged. No map verification.