Keith, I guess the source of the confusion was your statement above, which I admit was and is misunderstood. As you say these units' service was over on the 4th and the unit was ordered home to disband, which it did. Most of the men immediately joined other organizations and returned to the fray. And why wouldn't they have returned home "victorious" after having just broken a 3-day stalemate with a brilliant flank attack and turned the tide of victory to the Union? Their earlier service with Stoughton's capture by Mosby was certainly embarrassing, no question, but I'm sure Kemper would be the first to agree that they more than made up for it on their last day of service. Went out with a bang, you might say.
"Vermont was unable to muster another regiment from this area throughout the war." What does this mean? That Vermont was trying to raise troops in "this area," meaning Pennsylvania? And what does "once bitten, twice shy" mean exactly? The Vermont troops were afraid to tangle again with the Rebs, the real reason they boogied home so quickly...or...the Mosby experience totally demoralized their fighting spirit, rendering them ineffective for further service?
Not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand what you're getting at with the last part of your previous post which did strike rather a negative chord, hence a response that was a little more testy than it normally would have been.
Pax