John G. Nicolay, The Outbreak of Rebellion

[165] two prompting telegrams, which ought to have warmed the sluggish blood of even sixty-nine years to action. “Do not let the enemy amuse and delay you with a small force in front,” he telegraphed July 17th, “whilst he reinforces the Manassas] Junction with his main body. McDowell's first day's work has driven the enemy beyond Fairfax Court House. The Junction will probably be carried to-morrow.” And again on the following day: “I have certainly been expecting you to beat the enemy. If not, to hear that you had felt him strongly, or, at least, had occupied him by threats and demonstrations. You have been at least his equal, and I suppose superior in numbers. Has he not stolen a march and sent reinforcements toward Manassas Junction? A week is enough to win victories.” Unfortunately, Patterson, even before he received the first of these, had already committed the fatal military blunder of a retreat. But the questions were so searching, and so plainly conveyed a reprimand, that he replied in a tone of offended dignity: “The enemy has stolen no march upon me. I have kept him actively employed, and, by threats and reconnoissances in force, caused him to be re-enforced. I have accomplished in this respect more than the General-in-Chief asked, or could well be expected in face of an enemy far superior in numbers, with no line of communication to protect.” The answer was admirable in form and spirit, but it lacked the essential element of correctness. The enemy did not outnumber him-was, in fact, only two-thirds as strong-and was at that moment actually making a rapid “stolen march” to Manassas, which Patterson did not discover till two days afterward.

Understanding fully, both from General Scott's telegrams and General Sandford's personal explanations, that an advance against Manassas Junction was in progress, which