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

Your search returned 6 results in 3 document sections:

Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Our Gettysburg series. (search)
ide history, selecting representatives of every corps and division of our army, and of every arm of the service. The replies received we forwarded to the Count of Paris, and have published in our papers without note or comment of our own. Besides these we have published at different times the official reports of Generals R. E. ave published have made a series which has excited wide interest and attention, and called forth warm expressions as to their value and importance. The Count of Paris says, in a recent letter concerning these papers: I cannot say how valuable, how interesting for one who wishes to reach the truth, these letters are. As far as ope. We have thought proper to prefix these remarks to the letter which originated the series, which we now give in full as follows: Letter from the Count of Paris. Sevilla, January 21st, 1877. Rev. J. Wm. Jones, D. D., Secretary Southern Historical Society: Dear sir: I am writing the account of the battle of Gettysbu
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 sParis 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), General Longstreet's Second paper on Gettysburg. (search)
of the invasion from their point of view. It was justified, in my own mind, by the reflection that I was, perhaps, the only person living who could explain the motif of that campaign and the true reasons of its failure. It was made necessary by the fact that our amateur historians, through misapprehension or malice, had nearly all gone wrong, and utterly misconstrued the plan and purpose of that invasion, misused and misstated its facts, and dislocated its responsibilities. The Comte de Paris and the general historian, had they relied upon these statements, instead of finding the true solution of this, the great problem of the war, would have had it involved in more profound obscurity. In my first article I declared that the invasion of Pennsylvania was a movement that General Lee and his council agreed should be defensive in tactics, while, of course, it was offensive in strategy; that the campaign was conducted on this plan until we had left Chambersburg, when, owing to the