hide Matching Documents

Browsing named entities in Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). You can also browse the collection for Swinton or search for Swinton in all documents.

Your search returned 14 results in 4 document sections:

Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), A review of the First two days operations at Gettysburg and a reply to General Longstreet by General Fitz. Lee. (search)
ituated must move or fight. The absurdity of Longstreet's statement is shown in admitting the presumption, General Lee knew all this; nor can we reconcile with the facts of the case General Longstreet's expression, wherein he aays that his paper in the Times is called out by the fact that he has been so repeatedly and rancorously assailed by those whose intimacy with the Commanding-General, in that battle, gives an importance to their assaults. His communications just after the war to Mr. Swinton, the historian, were in substance the same attack upon General Lee which he has repeated in this paper. It was, therefore, in him, and came out before any of the utterances now complained of were made. The official reports of Generals Ewell, Early, and Pendleton, written soon after the battle, clearly stated it was well understood and expected that General Longstreet would make the main attack early in the morning of the 2nd of July. If these reports furnished the sly under-current o
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Numerical strength of the armies at Gettysburg. (search)
total --viz., 68,352-as representing what is generally understood by that term, and under the impression that the extensions under that column embraced the officers and men present for duty. I was the more naturally led into this error, as Mr. Swinton, whose figures I had before me, had done precisely the same thing. Lieutenant-General Early having directed my attention, on the 9th instant, to the discrepancy between certain figures given by General Humphreys from the same return to the Coe figures as one will, the disparity in numerical strength is very apparent. Historical accuracy being my great aim in all that I have to say upon this subject, I hasten to correct the error into which I have inadvertently fallen along with Mr. Swinton. Strength of the army of Northern Virginia, May 31st, 1863. commands.Present for Duty.Effective Total. Enlisted Men.Officers. First Army Corps: General Staff13 Anderson's Division6,797643 McLaws' Division6,684627 Hood's Division7,030
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), General Longstreet's Second paper on Gettysburg. (search)
disagrees with it quite widely. The main point that he makes is to quote from Swinton's Army of the Potomac the following paragraph (page 310): The number of infanorce alone of over 70,000, and thus have left no margin in the estimate that Mr. Swinton ascribes to me for the other arms of the service. If General Dawes had followed Swinton's narrative closely he must have discovered that (page 365) he says: General Lee's aggregate force present for duty on the 31st of May, 1863, was 68,3 June, or the 1st of July, he estimated his infantry at 52,000 bayonets. If Mr. Swinton received any information from me upon the subject he received this, for it wch I shall refer in this connection. It is in regard to a statement made by Mr. Swinton. In his Ultimo Suspiro he gives the history of a meeting which he says took of officers on the 7th I never attended, and of course did not join in the advice it gave to General Lee. Mr. Swinton has been clearly misinformed upon this point.
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Steuart's brigade at the battle of Gettysburg.--a narrative by Rev. Randolph H. McKim, D. D., late First Lieutenant and Aide-de-camp, Confederate army. (search)
brigade, and they were delivered at the point of the bayonet. I find a similar statement in Swinton's Army of the Potomac, page 355, in a pamphlet by Dr. Jacobs, and in an article by General Howacobs says: This might have proved disastrous to us had it not occurred at so late an hour. And Swinton declares it was a position which, if held by him, would enable him to take Meade's entire line night massing troops and artillery for an effort to regain their works. During the night, says Swinton (page 356), a powerful artillery was accumulated against the point entered by the enemy. Throutheir infantry moved forward in heavy force to attack us. The troops of the Twelfth corps, says Swinton, had returned from the left, and the divisions of Williams and Geary, aided by Shaler's brigadeed to the foot of the hill. The Federal historians say we were driven from our position. Thus Swinton affirms that it was carried by a charge of Geary's division. This statement I deny as an eye-w