While doing my database work this morning, I noticed two regiments with very heavy losses (deaths, not overall casualties) and decided to check if there were any higher but there weren't. Seeing action at the Union positions of the Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble Charge was the 111th NY Infantry which lost 95 of their number. That was the second highest death loss. Coming in first (a distinction no one wanted) in deaths was the 24th Michigan Infantry... the famed Iron Brigade. Their heaviest fighting occurred at McPherson's Woods (aka Herbst Woods and/or Reynold's Woods) with a loss of 98 men.
Please check the causalties suffered by the 1st Minnesota. I understand they suffered 85% of the companies involved. And they PREVAILED, they turned back the charge made on 2 July.
Yes, Sir, I'll be glad to do this for you. Hold on a sec. Okay, 1st Minnesota Infantry. Heavy casualties indeed... like I said, this is about death, and they had 38 killed and 37 mortally wounded to die a little later from wounds... for a total of 75 deaths.
Kate and Interrogator!!! In the same room! Just the folks I was looking for. I was trying to find some info about some Union general who had Lee's troops backed up to an almost flood swollen Potomac. The Union general decided to have a staff meeting instead of pressing forward against Lee. I guess the meeting lasted about 3 or so days whereby the Potomac lost some of it's depth and Lee's troops were able to get across. The war was extended because of the lack of action by the officer. The story was part of a class I gave some years ago and I cannot for the life of me recount the date nor the Union officer who blew it. Without at least one of those bits of info there is little hope for me to find out. The moral of the story I gave was, "if the battle can be won now, why wait. Take the chance." And oh yeah, I'm sorry because I was off topic....I just got excited when I saw ya'll.
Lee's troops... crossed the Potomac often I'd think, and the waters were high a few times that I recall. Do you know the year? Where they were heading when this happened? I could probably narrow it down if I'd know the time period and general area, but otherwise I haven't heard this story, so it would all be guesswork. Maybe @Interrogator#6 is familiar. Oh, and flood-swollen or not, there are stories of drownings that are heart breaking... it was more common than I ever realized.
I tried to dig a little further and the closest thing to the article I read some time ago is the history behind McClellan at Antietam. The article I read said something about a staff meeting, but the new information I *just* read said McClellan had a couple of thousand fresh troops he could have brought in but didn't which would have shortened the war. The before mentioned article also said the general in question could have shortened the war considerably. I am leaning toward the McClellan history article but I will keep digging to make sure.
