hide Matching Documents

The documents where this entity occurs most often are shown below. Click on a document to open it.

Document Max. Freq Min. Freq
George H. Gordon, From Brook Farm to Cedar Mountain 27 1 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 4. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 26 2 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 11. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 26 8 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 12. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 18 6 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 8. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 16 4 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 31. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 13 3 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 6. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 10 2 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 7. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 10 4 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 13. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 10 2 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 34. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 8 0 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Your search returned 230 results in 80 document sections:

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 1. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Book notices. (search)
n at the time of General Early's advance on it in 1864, and shows that he acted with proper prudence in not making a more serious attack upon very formidable works which were defended by a force much larger than his own little army. From Col. Wm. Allan, formerly chief of ordinance, Second Corps, Army of Northern Virginia, we have received Chancellorsville, by Major Jed. Hotchkiss and Colonel Wm. Allan. This is a very able and valuable contribution to the history of the Virginia battle fielColonel Wm. Allan. This is a very able and valuable contribution to the history of the Virginia battle fields. The narrative is clear, accurate and vigorous, and the maps are in every respect admirable. The book is gotten up in the best style of D. Van Nostrand, New York, and should have a place in the library of every military student. The battle of Gettysburg. By Samuel P. Bates. Philadelphia: Davis & Co., 1875. We are indebted to the publishers for a copy of this book, which has received the highest enconiums of Northern Military critics, and may be accepted as a standard work on the F
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 1. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Review of Bates' battle of Gettysburg. (search)
. [In a brief notice of Bates' history of the battle of Gettysburg, we intimated a purpose of returning to the subject again. The following letter from Colonel Wm. Allan, late Chief of Ordnance of Second Corps, Army of Northern Virginia, spares us any further trouble. We happen to know that Colonel Allan is thoroughly familiColonel Allan is thoroughly familiar with the history of the Army of Northern Virginia, and that some of the most valuable military criticisms that have appeared in late years, have been from his facile pen.] McDonough school, Maryland, April 1, 1876. Rev. J. W. Jones, Secretary Southern Historical Society: It is to be regretted that at this time, more than ten been published (so far as I know), but as his corps did not suffer more than the others, the average of the above, or 6,800 men, would be a full allowance. The entire Confederate loss did not exceed 21,000 men. There are many other points deserving notice, but this letter is already too long. Very truly, yours, W. Allan.
The Annals of the Civil War Written by Leading Participants North and South (ed. Alexander Kelly McClure), Stonewall Jackson's Valley campaign. (search)
Stonewall Jackson's Valley campaign. Colonel William Allan. After the disastrous termination of Braddock's campaign against Fort Duquesne, in the summer of 1756, Colonel George Washington, to whom was intrusted the duty of protecting the Allegheny frontier of Virginia from the French and Indians, established himself at Winchester, in the lower Shenandoah Valley, as the point from which he could best protect the district assigned to him. Here he subsequently built Fort Loudoun, and made it the base of his operations. A grass-grown mound, marking the site of one of the bastions of the old fort, and Loudoun street, the name of the principal thoroughfare of the town, remain, to recall an important chapter in colonial history. It was this old town that Major General T. J. Jackson entered on the evening of November 4th, 1861, as commander of the Valley District, and established his headquarters within musket shot of Fort Loudoun. He had been made major general on October 7th, for h
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 4. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Gen. Lee's strength and losses at Gettysburg. (search)
Gen. Lee's strength and losses at Gettysburg. By Col. William Allan. [The following is in reply to a letter of the Secretary, enclosing a letter received from a distinguished foreign critic commenting on Col. Allan's review of Bates' Gettysburg.Col. Allan's review of Bates' Gettysburg. As the letter of our foreign correspondent was a private one we suppress his name, though we do not think proper to withhold Col. Allan's able and conclusive reply.] McDoNOUGH School, April 24th, 1877. my dear Dr.: I regret that a press of engaCol. Allan's able and conclusive reply.] McDoNOUGH School, April 24th, 1877. my dear Dr.: I regret that a press of engagements has prevented an earlier reply to your kind letter, enclosing that of in regard to Bates' Gettysburg. I hasten to express my acknowledgments to your correspondent for pointing out an error, into which I was led by the fact that Lieut.-Genthe latter point. Hoping will carefully examine the original sources of information in regard to the matters treated by Dr. Bates, whose book may be conscientiously, but is certainly not carefully compiled, I am, most truly yours, W. Allan.
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 4. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Causes of the defeat of Gen. Lee's Army at the battle of Gettysburg-opinions of leading Confederate soldiers. (search)
he opinions of these officers upon this subject, from which, with the official reports in my possession, I would of course draw and write my own conclusions. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Fitzhugh Lee. Letter from Colonel William Allan, of Ewell's staff. McDoNOUGH School, Owings' Mill, Baltimore county, Md., April 26th, 1877. Rev. J. W. Jones, D. D. My dear Sir: The questions asked in the letter ofof January 21st, 1877, in regard to Gettysburg, are more or less 4th. Had Longstreet and Hill attacked early on the third, as was first designed, while Ewell was engaged. 5th. Had Ewell and Hill made one prompt and determined effort in support of Pickett at the proper moment. Very truly yours, W. Allan. Memorandum by Colonel Walter H. Taylor, of General Lee's staff. ---- shares the opinion that the Confederate cause was not a lost cause from the beginning, and seeks with great care to find out why it did not succeed. The solution
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 4. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Leading Confederates on the battle of Gettysburg. (search)
other name, and possibly another result — who knows? Colonel Allan says: The Confederates would probably have been e was, therefore, remiss in the discharge of his duty. Colonel Allan's language would make this implication equally applicabfternoon should rest exclusively on Ewell's shoulders. Colonel Allan's criticism, therefore, to that extent, is more impartied my memory. I will now notice some statements by Colonels Allan and Taylor in regard to the fighting on the 2d, The fobeaten back before Rodes was ready to support him. Colonel Allan should have been a little more circumspect in his statept that he calls it a simultaneous demonstration. Now, Colonel Allan ought to know that neither Rodes, Johnson, nor myself, attack too long, as would seem to be the inference from Colonel Allan's remark. My understanding at the time was that, aftersions were not made to act in concert applicable to us. Colonel Allan should have recollected that he was writing for the use
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Remarks on the numerical strength of both armies at Gettysburg (search)
s division cannot be counted in this return, as it never was within reach of the field of battle and was left at Frederick to act as a kind of outpost to cover the garrison of Washington. Couch's militia was too raw at the time to have been subjected to such an ordeal as a drawn fight in the open field against Lee's veteran soldiers. Losses on Both Sides.-We have now the official figures, which preclude any further discussion on that subject; I acknowledge my mistake pointed out by Colonel Allan, concerning the losses of the Confederate army, as he acknowledges his regarding the losses of the Third corps. From the returns of Stuart, now in my hands, his loss on the 2d and on the 3d of July, was 264, and including Imboden's and Jenkin's, must be above 300, while, on the other hand, we must deduct from the 22,728, about 700 men lost between the 3d and the 18th of July; therefore the whole Confederate loss at Gettysburg must have been about 22,300 or 22,400. The official figu
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Colonel Taylor's reply to the Count of Paris. (search)
Colonel Taylor's reply to the Count of Paris. Norfolk, Va., March 8, 1878. Rev. J. William Jones, Secretary, &c., Richmond, Va.: My dear Mr. Jones: In compliance with your request, I enclose herewith the copy of the memorandum of the Count of Paris concerning the strength of the two armies at Gettysburg, sent to me by Colonel Allan. I have only found time to read the same to-day. It is, in my judgment, as conclusive evidence as has yet been presented of the great disparity in the strength of the two armies, when one who deducts thirteen per cent. from the effective strength of the Army of the Potomac, and makes a further deduction of seven per cent. for the straggling from that army, during a period of four days, while he allows but four per cent. for the reduction of the Army of Northern Virginia, from the same cause, during a period of nearly one month, should yet admit that the former army exceeded the latter in numerical strength by somewhat more taan one-fourth. It
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Editorial paragraphs. (search)
not distinctly stated, it is strongly intimated that this has always been the rule of the Department. Now, we will do General Townsend the justice to believe that the reporter misrepresented him, or else that he is personally ignorant of what has occurred in reference to those archives. At all events, we hold ourselves prepared to prove before any fair tribunal that General R. E. Lee tried in vain to get access to his own battle reports and field returns; that General E. P. Alexander, Colonel Wm. Allan, Colonel Charles Marshall, and a number of Confederate gentlemen have been refused the privilege of seeing papers which they wished for purely historical purposes; that the Executive Department of the State of Virginia has been rudely refused to see or to have copied its own records, which were seized and carried off after the capture of Richmond; that Governor Vance, of North Carolina, has been refused access to his own letter-books to disprove charges made against him from garbled ex
Robert Underwood Johnson, Clarence Clough Buell, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War: Volume 2., chapter 6.38 (search)
, Maj. Norvell Cobb; 52d Va., Col. Michael G. Harman; 58th Va., Lieut.-Col. F. H. Board. Brigade loss: k, 20; w, 102 == 122. Total loss: killed, 75; wounded, 424 == 499. The strength of the Confederate forces is not officially stated. Colonel Allan ( Campaign in the Valley of Virginia, 1861-62, p. 78) estimates it at about 6000. Forces in the operations of May 20th-June 10th, 1862. Major-General Thomas J. Jackson. Jackson's division. First Brigade, Brig.-Gen. Charles S. Winder: 2sing == 1150. As nearly as can be ascertained from the Official Records, the loss in the campaign was 230 killed, 1373 wounded, and 232 captured or missing == 1878. The strength of Jackson's command is nowhere authoritatively stated. Colonel William Allan says in his Jackson's Valley campaign, p. 146: Jackson had moved against Banks, on May 19th, with a total effective force of 16,000 or 17,000 men. . . . His effective force [at Cross Keys] could not have exceeded 13,000, even if it reache
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...