Talk:Jackson's operations against the B&O Railroad (1861)/Archive 1

2008-Sep-07 edits
Grayghost needs to follow his own advice "The Great Train Raid article is about that topic. Quit inserting your POV about Lincoln and Fort Sumter into that page." The recent edits he has made [besides containing blatant POV] are way too detailed for anything more than footnotes to that article. The User:Grayghost]] is abusing the process by calling my edits vandalism & reverting them on that basis. --JimWae (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

POV Problems
Historian James I. Robertson Jr. is probably today's leading scholar on the life and career of Stonewall Jackson. In his major biography of Jackson he writes on page 229 concerning the material that makes up most of this article, "Delightful as the story is, it is totally fictional." He demonstrates that the entire story arose out of a post war article by John Imboden. I will be adding this material as a necessary POV in the near future. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you care to make a phone call to Mr. Robertson, you can ask him about the writeup he did for the train raid in Kunstler's calendar. Robertson's view has changed on this topic since he wrote his book.  We've personally discussed this with him.  Please refer to www.cwea.net and come book yourself for the next staff ride, see the photos of the locomotives, read the Harpers article, see the local history down here.  John Garrett himself hired Captain Sharp and commented on the train raid.  CWEA - Civil War Education Association, emphasis is on education of history ... not revisionist POV baloney that you are pushing. You are doing a great dis-service to people by attempting to suppress actual historical events and facts, which fit your views.  Please open a blog page somewhere.  Meanwhile, I suggest you call Mr. Robertson (up the valley) and confirm things before you put your so-called "POV" stuff on here.Grayghost01 (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So "Bud" writes "revisionist POV baloney"? As you will no doubt notice, I am also mentioning his work on the Virginia in the American Civil War discussion page.  I assume this website (http://www.longstreetscv.org/newsltrs/200807.htm) contains what you are referring to.  In it is the following:


 * “Arthur Candenquist, a retired Amtrak employee,  opened  his talk  about  Stonewall  Jackson's  Great  Train  Robbery  by stating that Bud Robertson must have abandoned his assertion in  his  Jackson  biography  that  the  Robbery  was a myth.  Robertson wrote the calendar narrative for two Mort Kunstler paintings depicting phases of this operation.”


 * I don’t know what calendar is referred to but I do happen to have a volume of Kunstler paintings with a forward by Robertson (“The Civil War Art of Mort Kunstler” (2004)) and the two paintings are apparently “Jackson Commandeers the Railroad” which takes place in June 1861 and “Iron Horses, Men of Steel” which takes place in Winchester in June 1861. Neither narrative attached to the pictures discusses the “Great Train Raid” or the circumstances alleged by Imboden.  The issue is NOT whether raids were conducted on the B & O but whether this raid on May 23 occurred.  Robertson’s criticisms of Imboden’s narrative and the uses made of it by historians is quite specific and I find it unbelievable that he would choose a calendar to refute his previous scholarly analysis.  If you have an actual reliable, published source that specifically shows Robertson retracting the information in his book, produce it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your premise. You seek the one reference with a contradicting view. This is primarily because of your extreme diligence in attempting to find any possible error in anything I contribute. We can easily go with dozens of references against your one. Furthermore, historians call some things incorrectly, and are often slow to admit mistakes. There is a wealth of local history on this topic. Perhaps you should come down and take some CWEA tours? It might help you to be less attacking if you meet people face to face, walk the ground, etc. A magazine article on this same topic was published awhile back, and this whole affair treated thoroughly, not to mention the old Harpers Weekly article on the coal cars and locomotive in the Opequon, which is part of the affairs beginning on 23 May. The wagoneers in Winchester crafted their wares for the initial disassembling activities in Winchester. These events could only have been done and recorded if the W&PRR was still open via the Martinsburg B&ORR. Once the cherry-run bridge was burned, then later wagoneering activities are forced to occurr in Martinsburg. Historical documentation and facts support the Winchester activities, and Harpers itself reported the later Cherry Run. The B&O accounting of all the locomotives confirm the total numbers, and the quantities of destroyed locomotives subtracted therewhith confirm the separate locomotive quantities, 4 and 10, for disassembly in the two locales. An historian on Jackson as a whole is not going to be motivated to do years of research on this small miniscule topic and raid. The B&O history alone confirms the affair, but one cannot foreget the local Winchester records, and diaries of various citizens in the Valley. The various Civil War periodicals are points where further research and uncoverings is documented, and that has occurred in this case. Thus I turn the challenge back to you ... can you produce reliable documentation which contradicts all the other sources on this affair? My conclusion is that you have no real true interest in this topic, and that, as elsewhere, you are argumentative for it's sake alone.Grayghost01 (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If I have no interest in the subject, why exactly have I bought and read both Robertson's biography and Henderson's biography of Jackson? Surely you have done the same thing.  The real question is why did you leave out the alternative interpretation provided by Robertson?  Aren't you aware that wikipedia policy REQUIRES the presentation of all significant views on a subject?  From Neutral point of view:


 * "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one."


 * Surely you are not going to argue that the leading biographer of Jackson and one of the leading Civil War historians in Virginia over the last several decades is not a reliable source? In this case, Robertson convincingly argues that ALL references to the specifics of the raid go back to the article prepared by Imboden for "Battles and Leaders of the Civil War".  A recent article in North & South repeats the Imboden view, but sources it to a different work -- however Robertson shows that this other work in fact relied on Imboden.  The Harper's sources that you cite in the article make no reference to May 23. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Since no material refuting Robertson's analysis has been presented, I have added the material. Robertson's value as a reliable source is beyond question. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, Imboden, Henderson and Hotchkiss all wrote books before 1900. No one, until Robertson, has ever accused anyone of lying.  The only source really in question is Roberston. So slow down, discuss this in the section below, and talk this out FIRST before composing half the text of this Raid article merely on the deification of Roberston.  Thanks, Grayghost01 (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Balanced editing
The material has been pared down and edited. It was poorly written, with typos, and turned the article into a disproportionate glorification of Robertson. Since Robertsons 200-year-after-the-fact account does not carry much weight against Imboden, Henderson and Hotchkiss who all wrote their material before 1900, and since it contradicts all local historical accounts, diaries, news articles and etc. at Handley Library, this extremely minority view should, at best, be a foot note. But in the pared down version, it's worth considering remaining in the article. However, one reference that is contradictory is not normally enough for a dissenting section in the main article, thus it will likely end up in the footnotes.

In the future, try discussing your proposed edits on the talk page FIRST, per normal Wiki procedures, especially for such a massive change, and highly charged personal POV based on such an extremely minority (of one) position.

Grayghost01 (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually the material has been discussed. You were asked to provide material that specifically refutes Robertson and have failed to do so.  Contrary to your claim, Robertson's research (as the reviews provided show) does carry considerable weight. I would be glad to contrast YOUR research with the extensive materials available to and used by Robertson. Robertson explains, as the material you deleted shows, that ALL reports of the alleged raid are traceable to Imboden.  I have verified that myself with the Henderson work; perhaps you can provide reliable secondary sources that point to a non-Imboden source. So basically its Robertson versus Imboden -- one a trained researcher and the other an ex-CSA oficer with a clear personal interest in promoting his version of the war. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, Robertson in his bibliography does list the Handley Library in Winchester and 18 different document and diary collections held by the library. He also lists 38 different newspaper collections which include the Winchester Virginian and numerous others from the Shenandoah Valley. So it's YOUR claim that you have done a better job researching these documents than Robertson? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is he chooses to ignore the material in the references, and the previous historical pieces by Imboden, Henderson, Hotchkiss, and the historical books from the B&O, and the government records of the return of the rail bars to the B&O which were stolen, the news articles in Harpers, and a very exhaustive list. Therefore, what we can do is go source by source and put in about 19/20ths of the references that it happened, and 1/20th of the material on Robertsons late assertions. That is, unless you don't care to follow normal Wiki methods on addressing conflicting resources. Meanwhile we need to balance the portion of Roberstons' comments relative to the time it was printed (recently) and that it is heavily outnumbered by other resources. Grayghost01 (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have provided (footnote 1) three reviews of the Robertson work by historians who find Robertson's work to be quite satisfactory and could add at least three others from JSTOR. Can you provide ANY published opinion by an historian than that criticizes Robertson's research? You can add whatever other sources you want to the article as long as it comes from reliable secondary sources.  You dodge the main issue by being unable to show that Henderson, Hotchkiss, or Evans used any source other than Hotchkiss to support the alleged May 23 raid. The news article in Harpers does not reference the May 23 raid, does it? You keep alluding to an "exhaustive list" of other primary sources that reference this raid -- what are these sources?  Footnote 2 references two on point letters from Lee that support Robertson -- how do you refute this material?  How do you explain why such a signficant raid is nowhere referenced in the OR? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Northshoreman, thank you for starting to discuss this here. I would prefer that you either pull your materials, or revert them to a foot note, until we can talk this out on this page, as well as get some others to proffer some views. I am convinced that if you are a logical person, the best course of action will prevail. I am also convinced (as of now) that Robertson is in complete error on this point, based on the factual evidence. I don’t have any druthers in presenting his sole contradictory view. I do ask that it be balanced against all the other sources.

I am open to a convincing argument. First, I propose, that we get down to exactly what points it is that you personally disagree with. Here is what I understand:


 * You want a reference stating that May 23rd was the date of the action, is that correct?
 * You want to know why the OR might not have info on this raid, is that right?
 * You want to know more of the details of the primary sources (the exhaustive list)?
 * You want to know why Robert E. Lee is not discussing this May 1861 stuff?

To satisfactorily answer all that, I think what we need to do is lay out all the materials on this page, and then select what needs to be entered into the article. So I’ll go first with Colonel Henderson. Colonel Henderson says ‘’This capture was Jackson’s only exploit whilst in command at Harper’s Ferry. On May 24 he was relieved by General Joseph E. Johnston, one of the senior officers of the Confederate army.’’ (page 92 of Henderson, written in his biography of Jackson of 1898).

This is Colonel Henderson's conclusion, and in the text he specifically states the date of May 24 as a reference for the end of Col Jackson's term there. So let's first get straight Henderson's view, and what weight it plays, being written so close to the events (37 years later). Once we discuss Colonel Henderson to its full, we'll move to the other sources one-by-one.

Grayghost01 (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Henderson also, in the very sentence before the one you quoted, wrote (in a quote taken directly from Imboden), "Thus he caught all he trains that were going east or west between these points, and ran them up to Winchester, thirty-two miles on the branch line, whence they were removed by horse power to the railway at Strasburg, eighteen miles south." Then comes your quote, "This capture was Jackson’s only exploit whilst in command at Harper’s Ferry.  On May 24 he was relieved by General Joseph E. Johnston, one of the senior officers of the Confederate army.  So the Henderson claim is that all this happened before May 24.


 * The problem, however, is that the capture of the "56 locomotives with tenders and 386 railroad cars" and their removal didn't happen before May 24. It actually happened after June 19 (see Robertson pp. 245-246). The transporting of the locomotives to Strasburg required three days and forty horse teams.  Henderson also mentions these events without providing any specifics on numbers of material captured or destroyed. Imboden stops his narrative well before these events.


 * So what we have is no clear documentation from Imboden or Henderson of the exact number of locomotives and cars captured as a result of the May 23 raid. In June we know from Robertson that 56 locomotives and 305 coal cars were captured at Martinsburg, but this was AFTER the June 14 destruction of the Potomac River bridge. What we don't have is a connection between this material and the alleged events of May 23. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PS You state further down in the article that the trains captured in May 23 were "staged ... in the railyards at Martinsburg" yet Henderson and Imboden both claim that all the trains were "ran ... up to Winchester." Are you saying they were wrong? if so, what is your source for the claim that they were instead moved to Martinsburg?Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PPS Yet more consistency problems. There is a Google Books version of the Weber book at .  As Robertson points out, Weber (pp. 76-77) uses the Imboden article regarding the deception of the B&O officials, but states that Jackson did not "spring the trap" until "it became necessary for Jackson to retreat from Harper's Ferry in June, 1861." So, according to now also Weber, the claims by Imboden and Henderson that the trap was actually sprung before May 24 is actually false.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

NORTHSHOREMAN:
 * Response 1: The cutting of the line occurred on the 23rd. What happened is that it trapped all the rolling stock and engines at Martinsbug.  They sat there.  Some of the items came down to Winchester, but the bridge east of Martinsburg was destroyed (uncoordinate) by about 2 June.  Only 4 locomotives with cars had made it down to Winchester.  So the next action was a re-entering of Martinsburg to burn the rest of everything.  You see, the various actions occuring were all panic mode, like the burning of the yard and the bridge.  But as time passed, seeing the Lincoln Invasion not yet unfolding beyond the initial Alexandria invasion, they went back up and saved 10 of the salvagable locomotives, and then using the same dollies and carriages from the first 4, took those direct from Martinsburg.  So, none of the rolling stock at Martinsburg could have been trapped there UNLESS the 23 May affair had happened to begin with.  This is a logical step that seems to elude folks like Robertson.


 * Response 2: Imboden was not in charge of the movement of stock down the valley pike. Capt T. R. Sharp was.  So some of the fuzziness that you are seeing actually corroborates the story, because if Imboden wanted to suddenly create a big UFO-sighting fabrication he would have filled in all sorts of false details.  Because the account is true, he merely relayed what he knew.


 * Response 3: The number of 56 locomotives comes from the historical engine records of the B&O Railroad. They were very detailed in their accounting, and kept a track of the numbers of rails taken, the numbers of cars, engines, the number of raids and disruptions made, and accounted for these in their annual business reports, and claims to the US Government.  For instance, they sent an inspector to the Centreville Military Railroad which the US had confiscated and planned to use elsewhere, and filed claims on the numbers of rails, the designs, proof of how they were the property of B&O.


 * Response 4: When Henderson/Imboden talk about "ran up to Winchester", this was four trains with engines, which was ALL Sharpt (chief engineer of the W&PRR) could handle at the time. The bridge east of Martinsburg gets burnt in the uncoordinated efforts, and thus the remaining stock and engines are now all trapped up in Martinsburg.  So, yes, Henderson/Imboden are giving you all the info that you need.  This is not unusual for one source to have partial information, and Imboden only had part of the picture.


 * Response 5: Regarding Weber, I don't follow your logic. Jackson "sprang the trap" when he had to pull out of Harper's is likely referring to the actions on 2 June. We know there were clearly things that happened over a period of time, including actions in June.  Because you cannot immediately inter-lock all the pieces of the puzzle should not cause you to simply assume it's just all made up and false (like Robertson has done).  Rather, it should cause you to try and seek out how it fits together and what the missing parts are.  I've layed all that out fairly well, I believe, in the article.

Now ... back to Henderson, Burns, Hotchkiss and Weber as well as Imboden, plus the historical reports of the B&O. This is a wealth of information, all with parts of the story, and that is undergirded by Capt Sharp's diary, local news accounts, local diaries and etc. Robertson makes them all out to be liars, including the B&O railroad company itself. Somebody is right. Somebody is wrong. Either all the previous folks are out to lunch ... or Roberston is. So let's go through this one step at a time and get back "on track".

IS ... or IS NOT ... Colonel Henderson a bona fide and credible historian, writing close to the source (37 years), who has the view that the whole affair actually happened, yes or no? Let's nail down each source one at a time.

Thanks for being open to the discussion, and again, I'd prefer that you move the Robertson stuff to a referenced footnote of a "counter" position for now, until we can deem its true weight and value against all the other sources.

Thanks, Grayghost01 (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * YOUR RESPONSE 1 The cutting of the line occurred on May 23 according to Imboden.    According to Evans it occurred after the evacuation of Harpers Ferry by Johnson which would make it around June 15 -- the same day that Johnson learned that Patterson had crossed the Potomac. Evans (p. 76) specifically writes that Jackson had the ability by May 28 to stop train traffic if he wanted to, but for two weeks allowed them to go through.


 * YOUR RESPONSE 2 I will again repeat exactly what Imboden wrote and Henderson repeated, “Thus he caught all he trains that were going east or west between these points, and ran them up to Winchester, thirty-two miles on the branch line, whence they were removed by horse power to the railway at Strasburg, eighteen miles south." Sharp, according to Robertson, did not reach Martinsburg from Richmond until at least June 21.


 * YOUR RESPONSE 3 Simply referring to “historical engine records of the B&O Railroad” is not an adequate answer. What historian examined those records and published them in a reliable source -- Henderson certainly didn’t.  Robertson, as I said, comes up with very similar numbers bit not until after June 19.  Where is the source that says 56 locomotives were captured as a direct result of the May 23 raid?


 * YOUR RESPONSE 4 Henderson’s and Imboden’s words speak for themselves. You need to find another source to document Sharp’s involvement back in May.


 * YOUR RESPONSE 5 See #1 Evans’ date for the actions is June 15, not June 2 or May 23.  Evans is fully consistent with Robertson.


 * As to your question, “IS ... or IS NOT ... Colonel Henderson a bona fide and credible historian, writing close to the source (37 years), who has the view that the whole affair actually happened, yes or no? Let's nail down each source one at a time.” It is clear to me that Henderson has added not one bit of information or research to the events alleged to have occurred on May 23.  He took his information straight from Imboden.  Please show anything Henderson wrote that did not come directly from Imboden. Comparing Henderson's sparse documentation and very limited reliance on primary sources, his work is far inferior to Robertson's from astrictly scolarly standpoint.


 * The last paragraph you added was a very bad idea. It is repetitive, non-encyclopedic, inaccurate, and puts forth your opinion as gospel (i.e. “give historical credence to this whole affair” and “this is fairly well corroborated by many primary sources”).  I will be tagging this and other sections as appropriate and adding the details from Evans that support Robertson in order to balance out these inappropriate additions.


 * If you are going to offer rebuttals in this section, shouldn't I do the same thing and spread out rebuttals throughout the rest of the article?Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

November 8 edits
I added the Evans material and additional material from Robertson -- both present an alternative to the events leading to the acquisition, destruction, and disbursement of the locomotives, etc. In both cases, this process did not begin until after the Martinsburg Raid. The existing material is confusing -- in part because no dates are provided as to when the events actually occurred although they clearly suggest that only a small portion of the material was still in Martinsburg by June 20.

The fact tags should be self explanatory. I have tagged sections that are primarily Ghosts opinions. It is ironic that he attempted to delete one opinion about Robertson's work (supported by three reliable sources) while adding his own opinions, unsupported, about works he prefers. I have also tagged his reference to primary sources -- if he claims such materials exist and support his position, then he needs to provide the specfics and a reliable, published secondary source that references these sources. Unpublished materials existing in some archive are not themselves acceptable for our articles.

Ghost also claims that works by a number of historians support his view. If this is the case, he needs to provide what support they provide as well as the source and page number containing this information. At least three of the one's he lists are avalable on Google Books and, based on my initial review, do not appear to address the events in this article at all. Hotchkiss, for example, was not, I believe, even with Jackson in May 1861.

It is also worth noting that despite the discussions on sources, the first two sections that put forth Ghost's man arguments are totally undocumented. It appears unlikely that Ghost and I will agree on our differences and a third voice is urgently needed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree...References do not check out as GGhost often implies and are quite often the exact opposite of what he has said or at least do not support him. He's trying to use the Jedi mind trick but it isn't working...more eyes still yet needed. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 01:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * All the hot air aside, anyone is free to check out all the resources and see if there were any disturbances on the B&O railroad or not. I notice Northshoreman is unwillingly to acknowledge even the first source, Colonel Henderson, who has two pages on Jackson's activities, capped with conclusion date of 24 May.  Is it necessary to transcrible all the references and their full text here?  Should we do this for all historical articles, or shall this be the only one, gentlemen? Grayghost01 (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

misspelling?
Under the subsection "B&O Railroad eventually Reopens" the quote that begins "On May 28, 1861, general posession was taken by the Confederate forces..."

Is the word posession misspelled by Garrett and copied here correctly or is this a copyist error? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Questionable source
"Candenquist, Arthur, Confederates Gather Steam, historical field tours through the Civil War Education Association"

I'm unable to find this source. Is this supposed to be a book or a person speaking on a tour?

There appears to be another source of that title on the same subject by Edward B. Burns "Confederates Gather Steam" R&LHS Bulletin No. 104 (April, 1961):7-30.

...but I've not located that yet either. Thanks. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 17:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is one reference to Candequist -- Candequist is the subject of the third article down.  I have found nothing to indicate that Candequist has written anything that would qualify as a published, peer reviewed reliable source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Candenquist wrote a magazine article, as well as gives out a printed package along with a slide show via the CWEA tour group. You can contact the CWEA for a copy of the materials, perhaps.  I have his package, and have had his tour, and slide briefing twice.  He is currently working on a book on Capt Sharp.  You can contact him through the Turner Ashby SCV Camp (has a website online).  He was able to do a lot of research on the railroad records, and Capt Sharp.  I suggest you contact CWEA and book yourself for his next tour package, perhaps. Grayghost01 (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What magazine? What article? Where you used him as a source, what printed materials, if any, were you relying on? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Northshoreman ... we have an odd relationship in which you never answer my questions, you ignore my points, you fail to respond when I point out any errors, and then you keep pestering me with questions to help you with your homework. What about Henderson? Can we even address one question of mine? Nevertheless, Candenquist's article was in the December 1991 edition of Civil War Magazine. He is an author and lecturer, and here is a short bio:

See also: http://www.cwea.net/2008%20tours/Jackson_Train_Raid_WEB.htm

Now, you have an uphill battle in your defense of Robertson's assertions, and I think we need to start seeing you formulate your position and defend it .... or relegate the fact that most historians are in disagreement with Robertson. Grayghost01 (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait, you found this source today?
 * Edward B. Burns "Confederates Gather Steam" R&LHS Bulletin No. 104 (April, 1961):7-30.
 * Where did you find it? Online or somewhere else? Where is it? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 21:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did you find it? Online or somewhere else? Where is it? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 21:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Call for dispute resolution
There is a dispute covered in several sections above concerning the weight to be given two competing POVs. A factual issue is involved concerning whether or not a 5-23-1861 raid on the B & O Railroad occurred. It is agreed, I believe, that:

1. Historian James Robertson said it did not occur.

2. Participant (alleged) John Imboden said it did occur.

3. The Imboden version has been widely picked up by other historians while the Robertson interpretation is more recent.

4. Captured locomotives and cars were located AT SOME POINT in Martinsburg and either moved or destroyed by Jackson.

At disagreement is the balance between the two versions to be included in the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It appears to me that this article depicts the event as if it actually occurred, but presents the Robertson thesis as a more recent, minority position (that event was invented/inflated by Imboden after the events of 1861) based on well-respected Robertson's extensive research. Is this a correct interpretation? BusterD (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct in identifying the current state of the article. Part of what needs to be resolved is whether this should remain the case.  At this point there is nothing in the lede about the Robertson research and this needs to be added. Also to be resolved is whether there does exist, as Ghost claims and Robertson denies, reliable information separate from Imboden that supports the existence of the May 23 raid. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is that one recent historian asserts that all previous and historical accounts are collectively false, based on a theory that Imboden was completely lying, without having any proof whatsoever beyond the gut-feel or assertion, and that further conspiracies occured in which all other reporters and historians made up and added details, such as the News Report in Harper's Weekly with the wood cut illustration of the burning Camelback locomotive in Opequon Creek in early June. Normally, in any other wiki article, this would not be a difficult issue to deal with. However, I believe that one contributor is specifically trying to make this into a big issue and place heavy weight and undue consideration to one historian over all the others. In my opinion, that then pushes a particular POV, driving all of this broo-ha-ha. Sincerely, Grayghost01 (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia editors cannot evaluate primary sources to determine the weight given to one secondary source over another. A secondary source can be evaluated as reliable or not, based on the author's academic background, publication history, scope of the sources used by the author, reputation in the community, etc. In this case, we essentially have two competing historians (and a group of others who apparently are echoing the first without much additional research). The more recent, Bud Robertson, had impeccable credentials and has produced an enormous, exhaustively researched, well-regarded, definitive biography. (The 'definitive' is obviously an opinion on my part, but one widely shared.) Both of the POVs should be represented in the article. And since the disagreement is existential--whether the subject of the article occurred or not--the disagreement should also be summarized in the lead section. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was writing a big ol' section in support of this, but closed the wrong tab at the wrong time. Essentially, I agree with Hal above and Cla68 below; summarize Robertson in the lead and put a few paragraphs at the bottom of the article. Skinny87 (talk)

So, in this case, we have a number of primary sources, and a number of secondary sources. Most of the secondary sources have information, details and aspects of the affair which vary and are different from Imboden's account in his book. This is problematic for Robertson, who does not adequately address that, and sweeps it all away with the claim that everyone must have used (Robertson's theory) the Imboden account alone. So the explanation of Robertson's view, if in this article, will need to credibly deal with that problem. Plus there is much ?tertiary? evidence, such as the B&O shutting down operations until March of 1862, and other consequences like that example, which have to be accounted for and explained if the theory that these activities all did not occur. Ultimately, since Hal proposes that secondary sources can be "throttled" based on credibility, I highly suspect Robertson will be throttled, and artist Mort Kunstlers paintings (the first two) will stand the test of time, and not become mere depictions of a UFO hoax. This deal will also test my overall premise in the ACW articles that selectively choosing revisionist secondary sources, and then railing on them as the height of axiomatic truth simply because they are "verifiable", being in print, must ultimatley come down like a house of cards, if Wikipedia is to have any credibility whatsoever in the ACW topic. I also propose that this article not be derailed into some kind of research project for folks who seem to take only one secondary source (Robertson) as God's truth, and then force anything said to the contrary to have the onus of proof beyond the original 5 or 6 chief secondary sources that pre-existed for up to 100 years. It is Robertson who makes the assertion that everyone is mimicking only Imboden (no new info or details). I believe even a cursory examination of just the other secondary sources alone disproves that. The secondary sources have mostly been listed (there are some more to be added). So I challenge anyone to make the case that Imboden is the one ... and only ... fabricator and source of this information, and that all secondary sources parrot him through a devotion to him or to Colonel Henderson. In the meantime, as I get the time, I will try to scan and include more primary materials in the article (news clippings, or photocopies of diaries or whatever). This was not my original intent for contribution to this article, other than the convenient things, like the photo of the wagoneers house and other items which readers would enjoy seeing. Sincerely, Grayghost01 (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * After all the writing on this discussion page, you have failed to reveal even a single incident of any of your sources referencing a single primary source that would contradict Robertson's claim that Imboden is the source historians have used. Let's also remember before more time is spent "proving" things which ARE NOT under dispute that Robertson is contesting only two issues regarding the alleged raid:


 * 1. That a raid into Maryland occurred on May 23, 1861.


 * 2. That there were conversations or correspondence between Jackson and B & O officials in which the officials agreed to limit all traffic through Virginia to the hours between 11:00 am and 1:00 pm.


 * The assertion that Robertson (or me for that matter) alleges “further conspiracies occurred in which all other reporters and historians made up and added details, such as the News Report in Harper's Weekly with the wood cut illustration of the burning Camelback locomotive in Opequon Creek in early June” is simply not true. These events could have (and probably did) occurred independently of whether there was a raid on May 23 or a conversation between Jackson and RR officials.


 * At this point, there is no evidence from any reliable secondary source (including Henderson's work) that has identified any primary source material (i.e. a news article, letters, written orders, etc) that documents either (1) the May 23 raid or (2) the communications between Jackson and RR officials. The sole independent source for these two occurrences is an article by CSA General John Imboden published in 1884 or later and included in “Battles and Leaders of the Civil War.” Imboden cites no written documents in his article to support his claims.


 * In the article itself, Ghost has added the following sentence, “However, the other historians used as references for this article: Robert Black, Gary Browne, Jedediah Hotchkiss, Edward Burns, Arthur Candenquist, Clement Evans, John Stover and Thomas Weber all give historical credence to this whole affair... .” Addressing these sources one by one:


 * 1. Robert Black -- This work  is listed in the references but not in the footnotes.  Jackson and the railroad raids in general are mentioned on pp. 86-89 but there are no mentions of the May 23 raid or Jackson’s communications with the RR officials.


 * 2. Gary Browne -- This is an encyclopedia article available here .  In fact this article mentions neither the May 23 raid or communications between Jackson and RR officials.  It is consistent with Robertson’s analysis.


 * 3. Jedediah Hotchkiss -- Nothing by Hotchkiss is referenced in the article or the references. He did not serve with Jackson until March 1862.


 * 4. Edward Burns -- I have no idea who this is.  He is not listed in the references or notes of the article.


 * 5. Arthur Candenquist --  No published work by him has been presented in either the article or the discussion page.


 * 6. Clement Evans -- The referenced work is apparently located here . I could not find any references in this book to the May 23 raid or Jackson’s communications with RR officials.  It is cited once in the articles footnotes, but only to support material over which there is no conroversy.


 * 7. John Stover -- This is available here  and fully accepts the Imboden version.  No primary sources are cited.


 * 8. Thomas Weber -- This is discussed in the “Raid Controversy” section.  Weber does echo the Jackson communications with the RR, but does not mention the May 23 raid.  Instead, he asserts that the railroad was blocked and locomotives were captured in the middle of June -- fully consistent with Robertson.


 * In the article it is shown that Robertson listed, as examples, five other historians' works plus Weber's which repeated the claims in question with only Imboden as their source.


 * As far as Robertson's credentials, three positive reviews of his work are footnoted in the article and I have at least three others located on JSTOR. Nothing challengig his credentials has been offered.  Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Positive reviews of Roberston need to be put on his wiki page, not here. I'll address the rest of your concerns later tonight. I can tell by your comments you've not read most of the references. Garrett of the B&O himself reported that by no later than 28 May, from his knowledge, the 100 miles of the main stem had been taken. Henderson has it by 24 May. Later ...Grayghost01 (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no reason for a dispute here. Clearly, the majority of historians in secondary sources report that the raid took place.  So, the main part of the article is fine as written since it uses those sources.  At the end of the article, put a two or three paragraph section on Robertson's opposing viewpoint.  Add one or two sentences to the end of the intro summarizing Robertson's position.  That should take care of it. Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like sanity and reason are starting to prevail. Is the dispute now over? Is the article now proclaimed neutral? But I think I can get more than 50 secondary sources of historians covering the raid in either small or large fashion, and I'd like to get about a dozen or more sources covering the "at the start of the war" and "opening of the war" and "early May" and "May 28" and "before May 24" types of references. These are really necessary to explain how and why those pesky Virginians and Jackson had this large railyard of 56 locomotives and almost 500 railcars (386 destroyed and 100+ stolen up the Valley) just suddenly and mysteriously sitting there for no good reason. Or wait ... was the B&O running trains uninterrupted on a busy schedule until the middle of June? But how did they cross the 23 burned bridges? What manner of levitation lifted the trains over the Opequon Creek bridge that B&O records as destroyed on 2 June? Were UFO's possibly involved? Maybe, knowing 36 miles of rails east of Cherry Run had been stolen, the B&O decided to move all its rolling stock from Wheeling across bare wooden ties to Martinsburg for safekeeping, and then were shocked to find scores of wagons and dollies awaiting them? Back to reality, the totality of events, which ran from the end of May to mid-June comprise such a vast amount of work that it's amazing it could even fit in such a short time period at all. The theory that the Rebs could whisk 14 locomotives away all in a day or two defies all common sense and logic. In fact, in one of the accounts (yet to be added to the page) one of the locomotives overturned on the Valley Pike, and it took days to upright the thing and get it moving again. But it sounds like from Cla68's comments that the clouds have parted, and the tags must go.Grayghost01 (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nah -- it's not over. 22,000+ bytes have been added to the article since Cla68 wrote.  Almost all of that has been added by you to a section Cla68 said should be "two or three paragraph section on Robertson's opposing viewpoint."  The tags need to stay on until we have gone through the entire Dispute Resolution process. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis and other comments
Based on the recomendations of two editors above I have left the "controversy" section at the end of the article. One thing that needs to be pointed out concerns "the dog that didn't bark." Ghost has implied that Robertson is alone in his dismissal of the May 23 raid, yet this ignores every historian who writes about this period who DOES NOT include the Imboden material. It would be unrealistic for these authors to include a rebuttal in their works of something they believe was irrelevant. For example, citing a website (see footnote #9 in the article), Ghost now claims that General Johnson, on May 24, ordered the Martinsburg destruction. Yet Craig Symonds in his biography of Johnston notes no such order, instead explaining that Johnston made the decision to destroy equipment only after being allowed to evacuate Harper's Ferry in the middle of June.

I have added a SYNTHESIS tag to Ghost's "rebuttal" section. What he has done in this section is to set up a strawman version of Robertson in which Robertson not only denied the May 23 raid (true), but also apparently denied the destruction of the material in June as well as the transport of the locomotives by land away from Martinsburg. Ghost then cites material and historians which Robertson agrees with and claims that it rebuts material that Robertson disagrees with. How, for instance, does a painting by Kunstler of events in June rebut events that occurred in May?

The rebuttal section also fails to address the heart of Robertson's position while claiming that it does. The fact that historians have written that the May 23 events does not need to be argued -- Robertson admits it and names names. What Ghost is missing in Robertson's claim that these historians all trace their source back to Imboden. Nowhere has Ghost shown that any of these sources developed independent information, based on primary sources, that indicates the raid took place.

The controversy section could be shortened, but only if the rebuttal section is removed. The rebuttal information, in addition to its other shortcomings, is repetitive. The article should have both versions of events clearly explained and documented, leaving it to the reader to decide what to do with the information.

I have also added a paragraph to the lede, as two editors suggested, describing the controversy. It is important that the reader know right upfront about both the agreements and disagreements.

Also, since this controversy is an historiographical one, it is entirely appropriate to include a characterization of Robertson's work supported by footnotes. The reviews establish that his work is widely accepted as the most significant biography of Jackson.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The following was added by Ghost and the "synthesis tag removed:
 * For instance, a 1933 interview of Joseph Crawn, per Candenquist, is an example documenting the sighting by Valley citizens of the rolling stock being moved to Staunton, Virginia which Imboden did not mention. Elsewhere John Garrett, in Stover, give detailed accounts in the B&O report of the summaries of destruction that Imboden did not know. As yet another example, Browne notes the specific types of locomotives taken as being a Hayes Camel, a Mason, and Dutch Wagon engines, yet more details Imboden does not give. Browne is also an example of aftermath details, like Garrett hiring Captain Sharp when his Chief of Transportation, William Prescott Smith, died in 1872. Even Weber, who is accused of merely passing on the first-hand accounts of Imboden adds that 42 locomotives and 386 railcars were the specific quantities of rolling stock destroyed. Yet in Imbodens account he maintains that "I do not remember the number of trains captured, but the loss crippled the Baltimore and Ohio road seriously for some time ..." John Garrett provides that time frame when he notes that by the 28th of May "general possession" had been take of now at that point up to "one hundred miles of the Main Stem" and that the line was not reopened until March 29, 1862.
 * I have not removed the material (but someone certainly should) but have reinstated the "synthesis" tag. The material added:
 * 1. Does not come from a reliable published secondary source.
 * 2. Does not provide any verification that there was a raid on May 23 and does not provide any verification that there were communications between Jackson and railroad officials involving limiting access to the stretch of rail in Virginia.These are the only two significant issues of debate.
 * Nothing in the above refutes Robertson's claims. He does not deny that material was destroyed, material was transported, or even that "general possession", whatever that is, did not occur. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr. North Shoreman, I believe the "synthesis" tag is back on. I provided a table of the 23 resources used (so far, it will increase) which historically capture this event. If that doesn't scratch your synthesis itch, I'm not sure what will. The table will get more info added over time, so be patient. Also notice that I have doubled or tripled the photos and graphics on the article, all of which I've personally taken while on the CWEA tour. These are the more interesting ones, and I've added citations where I can. I've also greatly expanding the citations to sources, just to try and nail down most sentences (but not all). It will take another 3 to 4 weeks of my time to go exhaustively through this, and some of the resources like the 1961 Confederates Gather Steam are EXTREMELY tough to find, but I will have those in my hands eventually. This has taken all my free time away from my work on the soon-to-be-featured Confederate States Naval Academy, but anything I can do to help Mr. NorthShoreman along with an appreciation for the body of history outside of Roberston as it pertains to this affair ... I consider a worthwhile endeavor. So, again, I thought I addressed your demand for synthesization (which I did not see coming from a group, but rather just you) but if the tag is there or not, does not really matter to me one way or the other. And be sure to visit this locale one day, and personally see the sights. It's well worth the trip. Sincerely, the gentleman from Virginia ... Grayghost01 (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I wanted to add that all the verbage on the "positive" reviews of Robertson are interesting, but have nothing to say about Robertson talking about the Great Train Raid, so what is the point? Why not put them on the Roberston article? Almost all the other secondary sources have positive reviews too (see Amazon sales pages for example). Are we to add dozens of reviews of every author referenced in this article? It seems crazy to me. I don't see the point in it. Sincerely, the gentleman from Virginia, Grayghost01 (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems like you don't understand what the SNTHESIS tag implies. What you have done, as I have demonstrated, is presented your opinion (i.e. ORIGINAL RESEARCH) and attributed it to sources which express no such opinion.


 * You added similar tags to the section right above it (that I composed) right after I issued a 3RR warning on your talk page about your three reverts of the SYNTHESIS tag. It appears your action was retaliatory.  If it wasn't retaliatory then you need to explain what in that section is SYNTHESIS and what is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia - a reminder
The purpose of Wikipedia, here summarized by Kirill Lokshin, a Milhist coordinator emeritus and Wikipedia arbitrator, is:
 * to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

-- R OGER D AVIES  talk 07:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems like this RFC has gotten off to a slow start. It seems like the next step in the Dispute Resolution process would be Informal Mediation.  Did you just volunteer to serve in that role? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I highly encourage as many folks as possible to come review this article, and all the 23 sources that I've compiled, to date. The citations to go with all that, up around 70 at this point, is only partially complete.  Please note that in the intro section and elsewhere, Mr. Northshoreman has felt it necessary to flavor throughout the article how historian Roberston disputes things.  I beleive the best arrangement for the article is to put all the discussion of Robertsons disagreement with all the body of knowledge in the later section, so that folks can read about the history and the raid first, see the nice photos, graphics, etc, and then review the Robertson affair at the end.  All in all the article does not flow well anymore, but I believe once the dust settles from Northshoremans view that Neutrality is being violated, and 3RR's are going on, etc, somebody can ultimately go back and smooth all the prose.  But at least all the sources, all the quotes, all the data will have been laid out very completely, so that it can be smootly polished, hopefully by someone other than me.Grayghost01 (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The following is submitted for whatever use third parties might want to make use of in trying to reconcile my version with Ghosts.

The article is poorly cited with most of the sources failing to meet reliable source standards. Of the 75 footnotes, 15 are from a promotional website by Arthur Candenquist, 7 are from historical markers, 7 represent captions on art work (Kunstler and Harpers), 1 is a company website, and 3 are from a source that apparently Ghost does not have access to. Another 11 are footnotes that I added to refute the Imboden tale and 11 are added to one sentence in Ghost’s rebuttal and are repetitious of claims from the main body of the article.

This leaves 19 footnotes. 6 of these are attributable to either Imboden or Henderson who relied exclusively on Imboden. The remaining 13 footnotes probably come from reliable sources. None of them, however, refer to any primary sources that address the two points in question -- whether the raid took place and whether Jackson hoodwinked the B&O to limiting their traffic to a two hour window each day. So what you have here is an absolutely unique situation for the Civil War -- a military maneuver that cannot be substantiated with even a single primary source (i.e. orders, letters, diary entries, newspaper articles, internal RR documents, etc.)

What we do have, is ample documentation that after Johnson received permission to abandon Harpers Ferry on June 15, railroad bridges were destroyed, a large amount of material, cars, and locomotives were either destroyed at Martinsburg or hauled out by horse power. There is no dispute about this among reliable sources.

The major flaw in the article is the lack of specific information on what happened between the alleged May 23 Raid and the beginning of the destruction in Martinsburg on June 20 when Jackson arrived in Martinsburg. Throughout, events are mentioned without any dates being attributed to them. The article suggests that the capture of the locomotives, their destruction, and the overland transport of them may have occurred before June 20 (see Great Train Raid of 1861. However the only source that specifically claims this is Candenquist.  Robertson provides a more detailed account of what happened in Martinsburg, including the fact that Sharp first became involved and Jackson got the idea of how to move the trains by horse only after June 20.  So in this case, we have a second dispute between Robertson and another individual -- the difference from the first dispute, however, is that there are no historians who support Candenquist (at least none that have been cited).

My idea of the shape the article should take is as follows:

Lede -- as is

Background -- OK

Planning of the raid -- Generally OK but some OR problems. A hatnote saying something like “See section below for information disputing the material in this section” so that it is further clear that this is the only section subject to the dispute referenced in the lede.

The raid -- all but the first two paragraphs eliminated. Everything else has a SYNTHESIS problem. Weber actually places the raid in June around the events in Martinsburg. Garrett does not specify what “taken control of” means and does not indicate that rail passage had been ended by March 28. Johnson’s alleged order to Jackson on March 24 to start the destruction at Martinsburg is supported only by an historical marker -- Robertson places the order coming only after the abandonment of Harpers Ferry in June.

Hauling away the bounty -- Major problems. This needs to be based only on reliable sources. It needs to explain chronologically how events unfolded from May 24 to the end of June. If a reliable source does not relate a specific event and a specific time for that event, for purposes of this article it did not happen. If reliable sources vary, then all versions should be presented and the reader can choose. Note that discrepancies here are different from the main controversy between Robertson and Imboden. Robertson’s characterization of events listed at Great Train Raid of 1861 is not inconsistent with a raid having occurred on May 23 and is probably the best basis for a rewrite of this section. Aftermath -- OK

Raid controversy -- There are three subsections. Assuming everything else is worked out agreeably, only the first subsection would remain. The subsection “List of historians believing the locomotive raid true” is pointless. The position of the “raid is true folks” should be fully documented in “The Raid” section with nothing but the facts and opinions from reliable, secondary sources. If Ghost wants to list his 23 sources in a footnote in this section he certainly can. The fact that there are a lot of such sources is undisputed -- Robertson admits it. Arguing within the article using his own SYNTHESIS of the sources, violates the principles of Wikipedia. Certainly, however, if their are reliable secondary sources that have reviewed Robertson’s work and contest Robertson’s research and conclusions, then that information should be presented. No such sources to date have been presented.

The Raid and Raid Controversy sections should each make their separate cases with the reader deciding what to use.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Second request for source info
Grayghost, Wait, you found this source? Edward B. Burns "Confederates Gather Steam" R&LHS Bulletin No. 104 (April, 1961):7-30. Where did you find it? Online or somewhere else? Where is it? :: <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 01:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, I will soon have a photocopy of this rare jewel in my hands, which I am obtaining from Mr. Candenquist. Now that I've had to work on this article some more to address the POV problems that have been added, I am reminded that I need to follow up with Mr. Kunstler on permission to use digital copies of his two paintings on this raid. John Paul Strain was helpful with the Romney article, and I'd like Kunstlers on this one. We'll see what comes through. Anyway, I'll be obtaining more sources and copies of some of these secondary sources, and will eventually be able to add the citations for just about every phrase of every sentence. I think its way overboard on citations, but it seems that people need to be led to the water. With all the signage around in this locale, it's been a complete wonder that folks not local to here question the affair.Grayghost01 (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, here is the problem. I'm the one who found this source listing and added it to this talk page here on Nov. 8 at 17:39 (noting that I couldn't find it). You wrote this paragraph at 20:05 (~2.5 hours later) beginning "However, the other historians used as references for this article: Robert Black, Gary Browne, Jedediah Hotchkiss, Edward Burns,..." and you added it to the References here at Nov. 9 at 20:46 (with the edit summary 'added a reference') and then began salting this as a citation here & here & then you include him in your numbers of historians that back this theory here...and you are the one who crafted this sentence:


 * "In addition to the historians Hungerford, Weber, Johnson, Tate, Davis and Dowdy, there are other historians who clearly relate many additional facets and details of the May/June 1861 activities against the B&O Railroad such as: Robert Black, Gary Browne, Jedediah Hotchkiss, Edward Burns, Arthur Candenquist, Clement Evans, who John Stover who all also give historical credence to this whole affair."


 * But now it comes to light that you don't even have this source but you used it to attempt to enforce your opinions. If you don't have it in hand (or online) and your eyes haven't seen it, I don't see how you could justify this. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 04:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's actually a PDF (scanned) copy of the 1961 Burns article, not a photo copy. I am working off a hand written bibliography and list of sources from the August 2008 CWEA tour. Yours and Shoremans notes are helping uncover a few new sources, which I'm ending up finding as having existed all along in my bibliography list, but which I don't have personal copies of sometimes. But I'm quickly correcting that. It will take weeks to go through most of this and add the citations, and then make smoothing edits to the article, but we will get there. Please double check any references and citations, I'd appreciate that.Grayghost01 (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary sources disagree with Imboden
Cooke, John Esten. Stonewall Jackson. D. Appleton and Company, 1866. Original from the University of Michigan.

Check page 49 which states that Jackson wasn't dispatched until June 20.

..and another source

Addey, Markinfield. Stonewall Jackson. Duke University Library. Jantz Collection. pp. 27-28

seems to omit the event...

This one gives an entirely different account from Imboden....read pages 67-71. Randolph, Sarah. The Life of Gen. Thomas J. Jackson ("Stonewall" Jackson). J.B. Lippincott & co., 1876 Original from Oxford University.

This chronology of Jackson's life doesn't list this raid...p. 12.

White, Henry Alexander. Stonewall Jackson. Published by G. W. Jacobs & company, 1908 Original from the New York Public Library.

Most notably his widow's detailed book containing so many of his letters doesn't have any May 23 raid but he does mention the famous quote of the woeful destruction of B&O locomotives & rolling stock at Martinsburg on p. 162 & 167-168. Through pages 155-168 Jackson seems to have been at Harper's Ferry during the supposed times.

Jackson, Mary Anna. Memoirs of Stonewall Jackson by His Widow. Published by The Prentice press, Courier-Journal job printing company, 1895. Original from Harvard University. Robertson's view seems more justified. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 04:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your logic is that no mention of getting all the trains stuck in Martinsburg ... the necessary precursor to the final burning of the parking lot of them  ... somehow invalidates something.  Colonel Henderson tell us what Imboden did not:  that there was a May 23/24 event and a June event (several pages later in his book).  This matches John Garrett's annual report in the B&O papers.  The May 23/24 events, at the time, were not the flamboyant-like event of the big burning and destruction of the Harpers Ferry bridge, plus Alexandria was simultaneousy being invaded, and most folks were running around in a slight state of chaos.  The chaos accounts for the fewer mentions of the start of the affair at the end of May.  Meanwhile it took weeks for dollies and carriages to be used to begin moving disassembled locomotives.  So this synthesized view is presented in Confederate Gather Steam and the later magazine articles and Field Tours.  So if you see it ... or you don't see it ... really doesn't matter because this article is not here to host your opinion, right?Grayghost01 (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't interjected any opinions within the article..you misunderstand my last comment so I will clarify &mdash; Robertson's view seems more justified than he has been given credit for here. Apart from taking part in this conversation, my contribs on this article have been of the wikignome nature (spelling, styling, looking up source links, etc.). I'm not here to push a view other than we need to do good work. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 05:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Berean, thanks for the clarification. In my opinion, Mr. Northshoreman mistakingly overstated Robertsons views and objections, and is likely not aware that Robertson has since conceded some things since 1997.  Controversy sells books when written on old topics, doesn't it? I've got 30 secondary sources now listed for the article, about 80+ citations, and a boatload more coming.  Thus I hope to utterly destroy and eliminate any possibly accusation of there being any "view" stemming from my original article creation which was merely a summarization of my notes on this topic.  The only view really being pushed seems to be an overstated one of Robertson.  Finally, I cannot even conceive of how something in this article is supposedly not "neutral".  What would be the non-neutrality being stated?  Thanks for any help with styling, spelling and all that.  Double check any references, citations, additions and thanks in advance.Grayghost01 (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

”Fact”, “When”, and “Synthesis” Tags on section “Four locomotives taken to Winchester then Strasburg”
Ghost had provided a misleading statement from Browne by failing to report the context of the quote. I clarified that Browne actually says that the 42 locomotives and 386 represented the booty for the entire year, not just a single raid. This therefore creates a discrepancy within the section and the sentence which I have tagged for FACT and WHEN (“Jackson's forces captured a total of 56 locomotives with tenders and 386 railroad cars, mostly coal cars, of the B&O Railroad, removed them into Virginia State Militia hands, and staged them in the rail yards at Martinsburg.” ) is unsourced.

Ghost then adds this paragraph which led to my SYNTHESIS tag:

In addition to the forty-two locomotives and 386 railcars taken, a newspaper report from Strasburg on September 7, 1861 stated: "Fourteen locomotives, a large number of railroad cars, nine miles of track, telegraph wires and about $40,000.00 worth of machinists' tools and materials, all belonging to the B&O Railroad, have been successfully hauled overland by the Confederates."[19] Thus the fourteen stolen locomotes plus forty-two destroyed locomotive add to a total of 56 locomotives that were intially trapped and stolen all together by the Virginia forces under Jackson.

Besides being inconsistent with what Browne also wrote, any effort to produce a factual reconciliation of discrepancies in numbers needs to come from a reliable secondary source, not from Ghost’s personal opinion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Update on things. I've made arrangements to review Bain's published diary of W.P. Smith the primary B&O Historian, some NRHS bulletin, a 1928 copy of a centennial history book of the B&O which all account for detailed records of the B&O history, and which have practically nothing to do with John Imboden.  Also arranging to see original Harpers news coverage for May activities (will have camera ready).  And yet another trip planned with Handley Library to review some collection of records there on events in Winchester (news articles, etc) which are referenced in some of the secondary sources listed, such as Crawn's diary, Keeler's news articles and so on, will bring camera.  More secondary sources to add over time as well.  Finally I've arranged a joint photo tour (in winter) when foliage is gone for photo shoot of Opequon bridge destruction at original site and location of current bridge.  Will be adding dozens more citations from secondary sources as time allows over upcoming weeks.  Perhaps this can be the most cited and reference article in all of the American Civil War topic?  Mr. Northshoreman, the aim of wiki is verifiable secondary sources, is it not?  I'm confident that if anyone reviews the work put in to this so far, it will stand the test of scrutiny way beyond what most wiki articles provide.  But I will not stand in the way of any material you stand behind or write to describe your views.  It wouldn't be your POV otherwise.Grayghost01 (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with W.P. Smith's writings and am a B&O enthusiast. I am not aware of any other thefts of locomotives from the B&O in 1861 other than those nabbed by the confederates when they shut down the railroad in may, according to W.P. Smith. What source is being used to support the view that these engines and cars were taken over a longer period of time across the course of a year? And by what means would the confederates have moved them later in the year? And what other record is there of destructions by the confederates throughout the rest of the year? B&O records indicate that line was shut down, and trains were not run on that vicinity of the main stem except under union controlled movements in that direction. I fail to see the claim above that there is any inconsistency, and I don't see much contribution of material about the biographer who didn't like the raid. There are also other harpers articles about the whole affair and their news about all this doesnt go beyond the summer and does not support the wild theory above that stealing and destruction of B&O rolling stock kept happengig all eyar long. I wasn't able to get over to the August tour, but I hear it was good, and hope that is reschedule again. Gray ghost are you going to cite anything of what W.P. Smith had to say? You need to add that. He is really the key source in all this, not Imboden. Imbodens part of the story that youve put in the footnotes is not really the source of the B&O story but certainly does confirm it. Imbodens paragraph gives very little of the raid at all, it seems most of the material comes from the B&O. How cuold the B&O be making things up? Were they looking to falsify and pad claims they made to the union army? I found a website with the confederate military histoyr at http://www.confederatemilitaryhistory.com/ but the virginia history is not yet posted. I'm looking forward to reading that since virginia was the main area in which attacks on the B&O occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.104.37.18 (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have that reference, Smith, but will have soon. The key to the B&O view in all this mainly comes down to knowing their entire line got knocked out from May-61 to March-62, and they book-keep all the numbers. They recovered 6 miles of their main stem line which had been installed as the Centreville Military Railroad. This had all been kept in a warehouse in Winchester by Captain Sharp. But as in "Its a Wonderful Life" that could't have happened if the May/June GTR raid had not happened. Neither could have people all over the place eyewitnessed locomotives being pulled through the Valley Pike, if the GTR had not happened. So there are two main ways to dispute Robertson's theory: (a) the B&O itself testifies to its losses and (b) there were too many independent eyewitnesses of what happened. And then there's captain Sharp's diary, too, which we haven't even touched yet (still in the world of primary source land). In the Virginia history that you mention, Jedediah, who didn't like Imboden, doesn't care to disagree, however, about the locomotives, as he documents this too. The irony there is that Robertson attempts to used Hotchkiss (who documents the raid) as a witness against Imboden's witness of the raid by calling on Hotchkiss' "unreliable" statement of Imboden. In theory that would work, except for the fact that Hotchkiss documents the affair, too. Oh well. So much for logic, eh?Grayghost01 (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed Bain's book that extracts Smith's writings. As Robertson notes, Smith makes ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE to a May 23 raid. On June 2, Smith is not writing about the capture of 56 locomotives, but about the interception of a mail train. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Source additions
A suggestion: your current listing for Kunstler should perhaps be changed to this for proper attribution...

Kunstler, Mort. The Civil War Paintings of Mort Kunstler, Volume 1: Fort Sumter to Antietam. Cumberland House Publishing, 2006. ISBN 1581825560.

..and this one is well-detailed and seems a good source but I believe it confirms NorthShoreman's point...

Farwell, Byron. Stonewall: A Biography of General Thomas J. Jackson. W. W. Norton & Company, 1992. ISBN 0393310868.


 * I'll come back and stick these in. The absence of information is not the same as a confirmation, nor does it prove a negative (that something did not happen).  For instance, one of Julia Chase's locomotive sightings from her diary is not in the Mahon book on her.  He selectively left that out, because it wasn't important to him.  I had to stop by Handley Library Wednesday night and pull out the 1931 book on her with ALL the diary entries, to then back track and find out what published books contained her locomotive sightings ... which was Quarles on Occupied Winchester.  I told the historian about the Robertson claim of the locomotive/train thefts as being a hoax and "totally fiction".  That led to a room full of laughter!  But getting the 1898 article written by Shriver on J. E. Duke is a complete knockout blow for Robertson's theory.  He gives the full story on where all the engines went, their trip to North Carolina, and what the Confederates did with that 40-foot turntable, and etc.  So with having so many eyewitnesses covered (Crawn, Keeler, Chase, Duke, Imboden, Smith) and their actual writings captured somewhere ... Robertson really needs to disprove those 6 eyewitnesses, not just one, who is a person he dislikes (and is therfore biased against).  We'll get all the noted/cited (with secondary sources) into the article and then get it smoothed out ... and I think the picture will focus for folks.Grayghost01 (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A strawman argument. The issue is whether the locomotives so moved were acquired in the alleged May 23 raid (as Hungerford, Farwell, Robertson, and Weber deny) or only at Martinsburg after June 20. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added these two links. What point of the North Shoreman's is confirmed by the Farwell book? Grayghost01 (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I will shortly be adding the info. to the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is very significant here that Farwell's book also precedes Robertson's by several years showing that this isn't Robertson's unique view concerning Imboden but one held by other historians previously. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 15:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Very significant contradictions on dates and numbers
Throughout the article there are contradictions and omissions with respect to dates and amount of equipment captured. This is especially apparent in the events between May 23 and the end of June. Ghost has placed great importance on Hungerford. The first very important question to ask is:

What was captured on May 23? Hungerford (v2. p. 7), answers the question as follows:

“When this was done, Jackson made his next move. Upon an appointed day in that month of May, he held up all trains moving through Harpers Ferry and helped himself to four small locomotives; which were not to heavy to go safely over the poorly built branch line to Winchester, thirty miles away. These engines, once obtained, were hauled by horses over the famous Valley Turnpike to Strasburg, but twenty miles from Winchester, where they were placed on rails -- on the track of the Manassas Gap Railway, which connected with the Virginia Central and the entire railroad system of the Confederacy.”

The “four small locomotives” contrasts sharply with the 56 locomotives claimed in the article. There is no mention of a raid into Point of Rocks, Maryland.

When were the balance of the RR locomotives and cars captured? Hungerford (v2. pp. 8-9) answers as follows:

“Six days later [from June 14, the day that the Harper’s Ferry bridge was destroyed], Jackson’s command was obliged to fall back upon and occupy Martinsburg. In the meantime, it continued its destruction. The many-spanned highway bridge over the Potomac at Sheperdstown was destroyed ... and, finally, the Great Baltimore and Ohio property at Martinsburg.”  He itemizes the destruction as “forty-two locomotives and their tenders at that important railroad center, in addition to 305 cars, chiefly coal gondolas”.

When did Thomas R. Sharp become involved and when did the balance of the cross country transfer of the locomotives occur? Hungerford (v2. p.9-12), writing of Jackson in Martinsburg in the last part of June, answers as follows:

“Slowly a great idea formulated itself within his mind. If only some of the best of those locomotives could be moved down upon those Southern railways. ... Over the turnpike; as he had done with the little Harpers Ferry engines, from Winchester to Strasburg. True it was that the distance from Martinsburg through Winchester to Strasburg (thirty eight miles) was considerably longer, but the highway was good and the thing was not impossible.

“At any rate, one bright morning in July, he arranged to take the first of the engines out over the turnpike. A picked group of thirty-five men,including six machinists, ten teamsters and about a dozen laborers, had been told of the task. They were placed under the immediate charge of one Hugh Longust, an experienced and veteran railroader from Richmond. Longust reported in turn to Colonel Thomas R. Sharp, at that time ranked as captain and also as acting quartermaster-general in the Confederate Army.”

After describing the procedures used, Hungerford writes, “In this way, fourteen Baltimore and Ohio engines, of every sort and variety, ‘made the Gap’ that summer of ’61.”

What historians disagree with this key sentence in “The Raid” section of the article, “On May 23, Col. Jackson executed a raid to cut the B&O Railroad lines at a bridge near Cherry Run on the Potomac River north and west of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Martinsburg Shops and the signal tower west of Point of Rocks, thereby trapping a large quantity of rolling stock in between, especially in the rail yard at Martinsburg.

Contrary to what Ghost would suggest, there are several. Of course, James Robertson does. As shown above, Hungerford disagrees in both the nature and the scope of the May events. Despite claims throughout the article by Ghost to the contrary, Thomas Weber also disagrees -- he places the date as after June 13.

'''What primary sources are cited to support this other key claim of the article, “Jackson then devised a covert plan to destroy B&O Railroad operations while simultaneously benefiting Virginia and possibly the Confederacy. Jackson complained to the B&O Railroad that the trains disturbed the rest of his troops, and notified John Garrett that trains would only be allowed to pass through Harpers Ferry between the hours of 11 a.m. and 1 p.m.'''

Ghost supports this with nine footnotes. Three are to Imboden and cite no sources, primary or secondary. Four are signs of some sort which cite neither a primary or a secondary source. One is to Candenquist’s promotional website which also cites no primary or secondary source. Delagrande is also cited and if there is a primary source mentioned in his work, it s not listed in the article. Weber, Stover, Henderson, Hungerford, and Black are not footnoted but also accept the claim. However, none of them, either in the text or in footnotes, cite any source for their text -- primary or secondary.

The only historian who seems to have looked at the sourcing issue is Robertson. He concludes that it all goes back to Imboden. On this key point of sourcing, Roberson stands unquestioned.

'''Robertson's work was published in 1997 and widely reviewed. Since the publication, has any reliable, secondary source specifically taken on Robertson's claim regarding this raid.?'''

No as far as I can tell. I have looked at numerous reviews available at Google and JSTOR and none question this. Ghost, for all his charts and original research opinion, has likewise not found a single source that does so.

When was Jackson ordered to destroy the locomotives, etc at Martinsburg?

The article alleges ''“On May 24, 1861, Gen. Joseph E. Johnston ordered Col. Thomas J. (later "Stonewall") Jackson to destroy the rolling stock [that was now] left here at Martinsburg, a Unionist stronghold. Jackson began his task on June 13, soon burning 300 cars and destroying 42 locomotives.” '' The source for this, however, is nothing but another historical marker. Most sources indicate the order came only after June 14 when Harper's Ferry was abandoned and Union troops were believed to be approaching.

'''There are numerous references demonstrating destruction of materials and the transportation of the locomotives via highways. Why doesn’t this prove that the raid on May 23 occurred?'''

They don’t prove this because there are no exact dates associated with the references. The accounts are as consistent with a May 23 Raid as well as the narratives that state that the locomotives were not captured in June. Of course, my opinion on that is no more significant than Ghost’s for purposes of this article. What is relevant is that no reliable, secondary source has expressed an opinion on what this evidence proves as far as whether the May 23 raid occurred.

Despite the wealth of footnotes that suggest otherwise, what actual source claims that 56 locomotives were capture on May 23 and then moved to Martinsburg.

The only source that suggests this is the non-reliable source Candequist. Ghost needs to provide actual quotes if he claims any of the actual reliable secondary sources (as opposed to tour guide promotional material).

I have started to add text to clarify sources, dates, and numbers. It must be noted that this information is all INDEPENDENT OF ROBERTSON and actually accepts some aspects of the Imboden story -- therefore it should not be relegated to strictly the controversy section but should be incorporated into the main narrative. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see your further research into the fictional raid. The total locomotive count taken destroyed and/or stolen, according to B&O, was 67 and the total captured according to the Confederates was 19. I don't have time to muck with the article this weekend, but as long as your adding in actual quotes and etc, I think that's fine.  Also, the Opequon Creek bridge of the B&O was destroyed by at least June 2, and many other bridges had been taken out on the main stem prior to that.  I believe a big pile of rocks was blasted onto the main stem also near the Point of Rocks overhang at some point (I'll have to check the date).  Each of those things, in and of themselves, were "shut down" events for the B&O.  The June-2 Opequon bridge destruction was so severe, it was not repairable in any amount of short time, as a masssive coal fire burned there for weeks on end.  Therefore, you must think to yourself: How ... logically ... did 56 locomotives and 386 rail cars become trapped in Martinsburg and when?  If the Opequon bridge outage happened in the middle of "routine" traffic, then how would many locomotive east of there get taken?  The W&PRR was a strap-rail line, and could only handle very light locmotives, of about 15 tons at most.  The Harpers Ferry was taken out June 15 (another long-term outage).  Yet only ONE locomotive happened to be on the main stem at that point east of Opequon and you see it in the NEWS article as run up the line and dropped in.  Therefore, logically, all 56 locomotives and cars HAD to have been purposefully and intentionally assembled in Martinsburg, because we know about 10 of those were taken.  The B&O did not routinely "drive" them all into that point on the day of the Opequon bridge going out, as you would not have that many going in one direction all at once on a normal spread-out schedule.  The only way, logically, is to purposefully create a bottlenecked schedule, and then do a sudden stop.  Therefore Imboden is logically correct, even if he "made it up". Of the 67 locomotives, nine were taken before or seperately from the Martinsburg burning.  Then 56 were torched in the rush job, of which 10 were salvaged.  One was run into the Potomac (Harper's woodcut).  One was left parked on the side of the Martinsburg to Winchester turnpike.  So I will add the sourced quotations for the 67 total count, and the 19 taken (when I can get the time to get back to the article).  I'll try to come back and give my 2-cents on each of your points above.Grayghost01 (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on your points above:
 * (1) what was captured in May - my opinion (sourced) is that four or more small engines were immediately driven down to Winchester on the W&PRR
 * (2) Balance of the RR locomotives and cars - my opinion (sourced) is that 67 engines were taken/destroyed, 386 cars destroyed at Martinsburg, another few at Harpers, and about 80+ cars successfully moved down into Virginia, total at about 500.
 * (3) When did Sharp get involved - my opinion (sourced) is that he was involved from very near the beginning, being chief engineer on the W&PRR, and helped with some of the immediate take. Once the collection of engines was burnt, he got involved with that salvage too, which was the "mother" load
 * (4) What historians disagree with 23 May for the stoppage - I think there is a combination of you misunderstanding Hungerford and Weber, combined with them not synthesizing and organizing their information completely. Johnston, who is probably THE authority on the RR's in Virginia, and who analyzed Weber, Summers and Imboden, and put this with an exhaustive scrubbing of the B&O archives says that from 25 May, bridges on the B&O were being blown apart, continuously, and that the Point of Rocks overhand ledge-blast was made then, and that a string of 17 bridges were taken out as quickly as possible, about one every other day, for 30 days straight, including the 837 Harpers getting dropped. THERE WERE NO TRAINS RUNNING during this time of every-other day bridge droppings.  Johnston points out that the PofR "massive rock" blast severed the entire eastern half of the B&O.  Johnston narrates the noontime halt as coming before his 25-May-and-on paragraph, saying it was the "eve" of the ratification day (the 23rd).  Stover then agrees its the 23rd.  Henderson puts it before the 24th.  The B&O ... not sure what is happening (the cloud of war being on the other side) acknowledges 28th which should be taken as a no-later-than.  Imboden gives NO DATE.  Therefore any argument against Imboden, regarding the story's date, is not sound reasoning, as Imboden simply gives no date.
 * (5) covert plan Johnston calls it a "surprise" and "trap".
 * (6) when ordered to destroy - Johnston says that destroying commenced 25 May. Stover says that by "early June" it was happening.  Johnston cites several sources, including a May 6 intent order from Lee to "destroy the railraod bridges in order to frustrate the Union armies".
 * (7) when ordered to destroy Martinsburg - Johnston says "on June 20 and 21, Jackson, bent on more destruction, visited Martinsburg" with a footnote of: "Jackson's raid was ordered by General Joseph E. Johnston. Official Records, II, 472"
 * (8) numerous references on transportation - There are many sources on this. I haven't smooth edited this far in the article.  I haven't put on Johnston's destruction order either, but we'll get all that in.
 * (9) 56 loco's moved to Martinsburg - several sources. One is Johnston, p. 23 "bagged 56 locomotives" and Stover, p. 105 "included 56 locomotives"

Final thoughts: Your nasty comment about Candenquist is uncalled for, you shouldn't do that. Now, it will take me a couple of more weeks to go through this with a fine tooth comb and insert every last piece in place and cited. I'll use as many direct quotes as is practical. I believe no such article of such a mundane nature on Wiki has ever been required to have this amount of work ... but if that's what it takes, then we'll do it.Grayghost01 (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Section "B&O President acknowledges the loss by 28 May -- More SYNTHESIS and ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Like so much of the article, Ghost has attempted to provide his own interpretation and analysis when some secondary sources contradict what he wants the story to be. The proper course when there are contradictions is to simply report the various differing reports and allow the readers evaluate for their own use. In this section, Ghost has elevated one source above all others and created his own "fog of war" theory to explain why the other sources are wrong. Interestingly, the sources he is now denigrating are ones that he originally used to advance his argument.

I have added appropriate tags to the section. The article is now, in my opinion, totally out of control and non-encyclopedic. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)