Case file

McGahan or McGann?

In November 1865 Ann McGahan, a widow in New York City, asked for a pension for her son Edward, a private in the 174th New York Volunteers who died of illness in the war. Ann signed with her mark. The Army twice said it had no Edward McGahan on its rolls, yet it did have an Edward McGann. Read the four papers from her pension file and decide whether the soldier on the rolls was her son.

Handwritten entries on a printed Mother's Declaration for Pension: mother of Edward McGahan, a private in Company H, 174th Regiment of New York Volunteers, who died at Baten Rouge in the State of Mississippie on or about the 20th of December 1863, of Desentary. — Pension file of Ann McGahan, mother of Edward McGahan, WC107141, page 4 (mother's declaration), Public domain

Handwritten answer on a printed Adjutant General's Office form: The name of Edward McGahan does not appear upon any of the rolls of Co. H 174th New York vols on file in this office. — Same file, page 11: Adjutant General's Office report, March 10, 1866, Public domain

Printed Surgeon General's Office form filled in by hand: application for Pension No. 121855; Private Edward McGann, Co. D, 174th N.Y. Vols., reported by Surgeon H. A. Schaefflin as having died Dec 20, 1863, at Genl Hosp Baton Rouge La, of Chron. Diarrhoea. — Same file, page 7: Surgeon General's Office report, April 9, 1866, Public domain

Handwritten entries on a printed Adjutant General's Office form: Edward McGann was enrolled October 4, 1862, at New York City in Co. D, 174th New York Volunteers, mustered in as a private November 13, 1862, and on the muster roll for November and December 1863 is reported Died in Hospital Baton Rouge Dec 21st 1863 of Chronic Diarrhoea. The name of Edward McGahan does not appear upon any rolls of said Co. on file in this office. — Same file, page 6: Adjutant General's Office report, November 7, 1867, Public domain

Was Private Edward McGann of Company D, 174th New York, Ann McGahan's son Edward?

Correct

Look at what each "not on the rolls" actually says. Exhibit B searched Company H for the spelling McGahan; Exhibit D says that spelling is not on Company D's rolls either, but in the same breath finds an Edward McGann there. Those are statements about one spelling on the rolls, not about a man. Now compare the details: Exhibits A, C and D all have a private of the 174th New York who died at Baton Rouge in December 1863 of a bowel disease ("Desentary" to his mother, chronic diarrhoea to the Army). The date is December 20 in Exhibits A and C and December 21 in Exhibit D, a one-day gap of the kind often found between a hospital report and a muster roll. Ann's two slips are understandable: Baton Rouge stands on the Mississippi River but is in Louisiana, and a company letter is easy to misremember or mishear. A widow who signed with her mark probably could not check how a clerk spelled her name, and McGahan and McGann both code M250 in Soundex. The Pension Office reached the same view: its brief in the file notes both Army reports, and the claim was admitted in January 1868. Each piece is circumstantial, so "very likely" is the honest word; together they point one way.

"Not found" means "not found under that spelling, in the place we looked." When an index or a clerk finds nothing, try other spellings and other companies before deciding a person did not exist.
Match people on several independent details (unit, place, date, cause), not on the spelling of the name. One detail that disagrees is a question to explain, not proof of a different person.
Weigh who supplied each fact. A mother far from the war knew the man; the Army rolls and hospital reports knew the unit, the place and the date.
Run Soundex on surnames that look different: McGahan and McGann share the code M250, which is how the later census indexes would have grouped them.
Two official records a day apart on a death date are common. Note both dates and their sources rather than silently picking one.

Correct

Not quite