hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
James Longstreet 388 2 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 252 0 Browse Search
Stonewall Jackson 248 0 Browse Search
A. P. Hill 176 6 Browse Search
Gettysburg (Pennsylvania, United States) 158 0 Browse Search
S. D. Lee 154 0 Browse Search
U. S. Grant 138 0 Browse Search
Generals Longstreet 114 0 Browse Search
Plank (Pennsylvania, United States) 106 0 Browse Search
John B. Hood 88 4 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 6. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 110 total hits in 33 results.

1 2 3 4
R. E. Lee (search for this): chapter 3.20
re anxiety than any of the others; I was never half so anxious about Lee, has very naturally raised the question, When and where was General statements of this effort to manufacture history: I never ranked Lee as high as some others of the army, said the General, that is to say anxiety when he was in my front as when Joe Johnston was in front. Lee was a good man, a fair commander, who had everything in his favor. e outside world. All this is of an immense advantage to a general. Lee had this in a remarkable degree. Everything lie did was right. He one into history, with so many other illusions that are historical. Lee was of a slow, conservative, cautious nature, without imagination orme, not only to officers but men. General Grant's opinion of General Lee is a matter of small moment. General Scott pronounced him I tss is in the same direction, while European critics concur in giving Lee a place second to none of the generals on the other side, not a few
G. T. Beauregard (search for this): chapter 3.20
his force was actually engaged in his and Butler's operations, or in Hunter's expedition, which latter General Lee was compelled to meet by heavy detachments from his own army. To meet this mighty host, General Lee had on the Rapidan less than 50,000 men, and in his whole Department of Northern Virginia (which included the garrison around Richmond and the troops in the Valley), his field return for the last of April, 1864, shows only 52,626 present for duty. Add all of the troops which Beauregard had in front of Butler, or which joined Lee at any time during the campaign, and there remains (against General Grant's table talk, or the ingenious manipulation of his Military Secretary and facile interviewer) the stubborn official fact that General Grant had on that campaign four times as many men as Lee could command. General Grant says that Lee was of a slow, cautious, conservative nature. But when military critics come to study this campaign in the light of all of the facts — wh
Albert Sidney Johnston (search for this): chapter 3.20
to him, excite a smile and a fervent wish from an old foot cavalryman that Sheridan, or even Grant himself, had been in Jackson's front on that memorable Valley campaign. It is useless to speculate on what the result would have been; but we feel every confidence that Cavalry Sheridan would never afterwards have awakened the poet's lyre, and that the world would never have had this table-talk. His remark, I have had nearly all of the Southern Generals in high command in front of me, and Johnston gave me more anxiety than any of the others; I was never half so anxious about Lee, has very naturally raised the question, When and where was General J. E. Johnston ever in Grant's front? That great commander, with a very inadequate force, was in Grant's rear, while he was besieging Vicksburg; but with the heavy fortifications which protected him, and in the light of his statement in the next paragraph, that he did not know that Johnston was coming until he read his book, it is difficult
Stanton (search for this): chapter 3.20
n for the young negro men to run off, leaving only the old men, the women and the children as a burden on the plantations and a heavy tax on the planters. Secretary Stanton (page 31 of his report for 1865) states,that there were actually mustered into the service of the United States from the 15th of April, 1861, to the 14th of ate is very nearly correct; so that the official figures show that the United States had in service more than four times as many men as the Confederacy had. Mr. Stanton states in his report (page 5) that the aggregate national military force of all arms the 1st May, 1864, was 970,710, of whom 662,345 were present for duty --so put together during the whole war, and more than four times as many as we had then under arms. As for the army with which General Grant opposed General Lee, Secretary Stanton (page 5) puts the aggregate available force present for duty May 1st, 1864, as follows: Department of Washington42,124 Army of the Potomac120,380 Depart
U. S. Grant (search for this): chapter 3.20
an old foot cavalryman that Sheridan, or even Grant himself, had been in Jackson's front on that mn and where was General J. E. Johnston ever in Grant's front? That great commander, with a very in book, it is difficult to see the cause of General Grant's anxiety. But the following is, perhaphe time, not only to officers but men. General Grant's opinion of General Lee is a matter of sm had as many men under arms as the North. General Grant's affirmation is but a bold repetition of -so that when the campaign of 1864 opened, General Grant (as commander-in-chief) had under his ordeen under arms. As for the army with which General Grant opposed General Lee, Secretary Stanton (paterviewer) the stubborn official fact that General Grant had on that campaign four times as many mel of the facts — when they see that so soon as Grant crossed the Rapidan with his mighty host, Lee,t at Cold Harbor, Lee was just about to attack Grant when he crossed the James and sat down to the [8 more...]
Sheridan (search for this): chapter 3.20
ny detailed reply to his comments on Southern Generals. His disparaging remarks about Stonewall Jackson, and his opinion that he would have been badly beaten if Sheridan or any of our great generals had been opposed to him, excite a smile and a fervent wish from an old foot cavalryman that Sheridan, or even Grant himself, had beeSheridan, or even Grant himself, had been in Jackson's front on that memorable Valley campaign. It is useless to speculate on what the result would have been; but we feel every confidence that Cavalry Sheridan would never afterwards have awakened the poet's lyre, and that the world would never have had this table-talk. His remark, I have had nearly all of the SoutheSheridan would never afterwards have awakened the poet's lyre, and that the world would never have had this table-talk. His remark, I have had nearly all of the Southern Generals in high command in front of me, and Johnston gave me more anxiety than any of the others; I was never half so anxious about Lee, has very naturally raised the question, When and where was General J. E. Johnston ever in Grant's front? That great commander, with a very inadequate force, was in Grant's rear, while he was
Joe Johnston (search for this): chapter 3.20
ications which protected him, and in the light of his statement in the next paragraph, that he did not know that Johnston was coming until he read his book, it is difficult to see the cause of General Grant's anxiety. But the following is, perhaps, the most remarkable of all of the wild statements of this effort to manufacture history: I never ranked Lee as high as some others of the army, said the General, that is to say, I never had as much anxiety when he was in my front as when Joe Johnston was in front. Lee was a good man, a fair commander, who had everything in his favor. He was a man who needed sunshine. He was supported by the unanimous voice of the South; he was supported by a large party in the North; he had the support and sympathy of the outside world. All this is of an immense advantage to a general. Lee had this in a remarkable degree. Everything lie did was right. He was treated like a demi-god. Our generals had a hostile press, lukewarm friends, and a pub
Joseph E. Johnston (search for this): chapter 3.20
ey campaign. It is useless to speculate on what the result would have been; but we feel every confidence that Cavalry Sheridan would never afterwards have awakened the poet's lyre, and that the world would never have had this table-talk. His remark, I have had nearly all of the Southern Generals in high command in front of me, and Johnston gave me more anxiety than any of the others; I was never half so anxious about Lee, has very naturally raised the question, When and where was General J. E. Johnston ever in Grant's front? That great commander, with a very inadequate force, was in Grant's rear, while he was besieging Vicksburg; but with the heavy fortifications which protected him, and in the light of his statement in the next paragraph, that he did not know that Johnston was coming until he read his book, it is difficult to see the cause of General Grant's anxiety. But the following is, perhaps, the most remarkable of all of the wild statements of this effort to manufacture
Badeau (search for this): chapter 3.20
world holds of Robert E. Lee, his friends may well afford to pass by in silence the sneers of a man whom he out-generaled at every point and whipped, until at last by mere attrition, his thin lines were worn away, and he was compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources. Nor would it seem necessary to notice the oft-refuted statement that the South had as many men under arms as the North. General Grant's affirmation is but a bold repetition of what his Military Secretary, General Badeau, wrote in the London Standard several years ago, and to which General Early (see volume II, page 6, Southern Historical Papers) made so crushing a reply that we can account for its repetition only from our knowledge of the persistency with which Northern generals and Northern writers have endeavored to force this misrepresentation of facts into history. The census of 1860 shows that the fourteen States from which the Confederacy drew any part of its forces had a white population of on
B. F. Butler (search for this): chapter 3.20
crossed the Rapidan with 141,160 men, and had as a reserve upon which he could draw an available force of 137,672--making a grand total of 278,832. His own official report shows that nearly the whole of this force was actually engaged in his and Butler's operations, or in Hunter's expedition, which latter General Lee was compelled to meet by heavy detachments from his own army. To meet this mighty host, General Lee had on the Rapidan less than 50,000 men, and in his whole Department of Northern Virginia (which included the garrison around Richmond and the troops in the Valley), his field return for the last of April, 1864, shows only 52,626 present for duty. Add all of the troops which Beauregard had in front of Butler, or which joined Lee at any time during the campaign, and there remains (against General Grant's table talk, or the ingenious manipulation of his Military Secretary and facile interviewer) the stubborn official fact that General Grant had on that campaign four times
1 2 3 4