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
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 4. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 91 5 Browse Search
Maj. Jed. Hotchkiss, Confederate Military History, a library of Confederate States Military History: Volume 3, Virginia (ed. Clement Anselm Evans) 52 2 Browse Search
Edward Porter Alexander, Military memoirs of a Confederate: a critical narrative 40 2 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 8. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 33 3 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 28 6 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 14. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 27 3 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 3. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 27 1 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government 24 2 Browse Search
The Annals of the Civil War Written by Leading Participants North and South (ed. Alexander Kelly McClure) 24 4 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 24. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 23 1 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

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

Your search returned 17 results in 8 document sections:

Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Leading Confederates on the battle of Gettysburg. (search)
1877, of the Southern Historical Society Papers), Colonel Walter H. Taylor, in speaking of the fight on the 3d of July, saysry gallantly. After such a declaration, strange to say, Col. Taylor, in his second paper (September No., 1877, of the Southe line was neither drooping nor did it move in echelon. Colonel Taylor seems not to have been aware, or to have forgotten thew one mile and a quarter from the enemy's line. From Colonel Taylor's position, then, to the left, the apparent drooping othe result of his right-oblique view of the charge. Colonel Taylor is again at fault when he says the charge was made dowlker, of the Third corps. By command of General Lee. W. H. Taylor, Assistant-Adjutant General. To Colonel J. B. Walton. ssertions. The first letter that I offer is from Colonel W. H. Taylor, of General Lee's staff. It is as follows: Norfoln the daily walks of life. Yours, very respectfully, W. H. Taylor. To General Longstreet. The next letter is from Co
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)
tember, 1877, General Long gives various details which demonstrate that General Lee expected Longstreet to attack early in the morning of the 2nd; that, at 10 o'clock, General Lee's impatience became so urgent that he proceeded in person to hasten the movements of Longstreet; that he was met by the welcome tidings that Longstreet's troops were in motion; and that, after further annoying delays, at 1 o'clock P. M. General Lee's impatience again urged him to go in quest of Longstreet. Col. Walter H. Taylor, of General Lee's staff, whose letter General Longstreet gives to show that he did not hear the order for an early attack, says, in his article published in the Southern Historical Society Papers for September, 1877, it is generally conceded that General Longstreet on this occasion was fairly chargeable with tardiness; that he had been urged the day before by General Lee to hasten his march; and, that, on the morning of the 2nd, General Lee was chafed by the non-appearance of the tro
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Remarks on the numerical strength of both armies at Gettysburg (search)
Remarks on the numerical strength of both armies at Gettysburg Comte de Paris. [We publish with great pleasure the following paper from our distinguished friend, and only regret that a clear, conclusive note from Colonel Walter H. Taylor, pointing out the errors which the Count still holds (in spite of the fair spirit in which he writes), is crowded into our next number.] The returns of both armies generally gave three figures for each body of troops, which figures it is essential not to mistake the one with the other for the same army, nor to compare the one with a different one in the opposite armies. These figures showed the number of officers and soldies: 1st, on the rolls; 2d, present; 3d, present for duty. The first category contained every man belonging to the regiment, either present or absent on leave, sick or healthy, or without leave. It happened in both armies, at certain times, that the absentees numbered more than one-third of the whole force. The second cate
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Editorial paragraphs. (search)
Editorial paragraphs. Our Contributors have placed us under many obligations for the valuable papers they have furnished us, and we beg that they will have patience if their articles do not appear promptly. We have on hand a number of papers, reports, &c., which we are anxious to publish at the earliest possible moment, but we are unable to crowd into our pages more than they will hold. On page 137 (March No.) the types make General Taylor speak of the fame of Dubois, when he wrote Louvois, who was, at the time alluded to, the War Minister of Louis the Fourteenth. Our General agent in the West, General George D. Johnston, continues to be most successful in his canvass, and to meet a cordial reception wherever he goes in Tennessee. In Nashville, Clarksville, and Jackson he has secured more than 350 subscribers. He is just beginning the canvass of Memphis. We again commend him as a gallant soldier and an accomplished gentleman every way worthy of confidence and est
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Numerical strength of the armies at Gettysburg. (search)
Numerical strength of the armies at Gettysburg. by Colonel Walter H. Taylor, A. A. G., A. N. V. [The following explanation and correction of his former article was sent by Colonel Taylor simultaneously to the Philadelphia Times and to us. We exceedingly regret that its publication in our Papers has been unavoidably delayed until now:] As my account of the battle of Gettysburg was first given to the public in your columns, I respectfully ask space therein sufficient to make the following Colonel Taylor simultaneously to the Philadelphia Times and to us. We exceedingly regret that its publication in our Papers has been unavoidably delayed until now:] As my account of the battle of Gettysburg was first given to the public in your columns, I respectfully ask space therein sufficient to make the following explanation and correction of the statement of the strength of the Confederate Army then made in that campaign: I would premise with the mention of the fact that two kinds of returns of the strength of the army were required to be made to the Department during the war — the one a field return, made twice a month (on the 10th and 20th), and the other a monthly return, made on the last day of each month. In the field returns there was a column for the officers present for duty, and one for e
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 str about 115,000 effective, officers and enlisted men, present for duty. Compare our 67,000 to their 100,000 or 105,000, or compare our 74,000 to their 115,000; but do not compare our maximum 74,000 with their minimum 95,000. Yours, truly, W. H. Taylor. P. S. In an article contributed to the Weekly Times of Philadelphia, March 10th, General Humphreys, U. S. A., rather confirms my estimate of the strength of the Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg. According to his statement, the return
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), General Longstreet's Second paper on Gettysburg. (search)
nwhile I received a note from General Lee. He had heard my guns, and at once supposed I had thought it best to relieve Jackson in a different manner from that indidicated by his orders. He therefore wrote that if I had found anything better than reinforcing Jackson, to pursue it. I mention this incident simply to show the official relations that existed between General Lee and myself. As to our personal relations I present two letters throwing light upon that subject. One is from Colonel W. H. Taylor, assistant adjutant general, and the other is from General Lee himself: headquarters army of Northern Virginia, April 26, 1864. My dear General: I have received your note of yesterday, and have consulted the General about reviewing your command. He directs me to say that he has written to the President to know if he can visit and review the army this week, and until his reply is received the General cannot say when he can visit you. He is anxious to see you, and it will give
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Reply to General Longstreet's Second paper. (search)
turmoil of battle. The Federals gave way before our troops, fell back in disorder, and fled precipitately, leaving their dead and wounded on the field. During their retreat the artillery opened with destructive power upon the fugitive masses. The infantry followed until darkness put an end to the pursuit. After giving his statement of the operations at Second Manassas, to show the official relations between. General Lee and himself, General Longstreet gives two letters, one from Colonel Taylor and the other from General Lee, to show the kindly personal relations that existed between himself and General Lee and his staff, a matter which no one will pretend to controvert, but which all will say ought to have prevented General Longstreet's insidious efforts to undermine the military fame of one who had been so kind, so indulgent, so magnanimous to him under all circumstances. It may be observed here, that, while General Longstreet has given a letter from General Lee to him, wr