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
Robert E. Lee (search for this): chapter 3.20
r the army with which General Grant opposed General Lee, Secretary Stanton (page 5) puts the aggregns, or in Hunter's expedition, which latter General Lee was compelled to meet by heavy detachments uregard had in front of Butler, or which joined Lee at any time during the campaign, and there rema had on that campaign four times as many men as Lee could command. General Grant says that Lee Lee was of a slow, cautious, conservative nature. But when military critics come to study this campaigGrant crossed the Rapidan with his mighty host, Lee, instead of retreating, advanced at once upon hdealing him the crushing defeat at Cold Harbor, Lee was just about to attack Grant when he crossed ble-talk as true, but will rather conclude that Lee was one of the boldest soldiers of all history.The simple truth is that on that great campaign Lee foiled Grant in every move he made, defeated hiother words, he lost about twice as many men as Lee had in order to take a position which he could [2 more...]
Swinton (search for this): chapter 3.20
or 1865) states,that there were actually mustered into the service of the United States from the 15th of April, 1861, to the 14th of April, 1865, 2,656,553 men. Mr. Swinton, who had free access to the Confederate archives several years ago, states that 600,000 men in all were put into the Confederate service during the same period,d his brave army shaken in its structure, its valor quenched in blood and thousands of its ablest officers killed or wounded, was the Army of the Potomac no more (Swinton), and the government at Washington would have been ready to give up the struggle if its further prosecution had depended alone on the great butcher. Grant says he lost in this campaign, from the Wilderness to Cold Harbor, 39,000 men; but Swinton puts his loss at over 60,000, and a careful examination of the figures of the Surgeon-General will show that his real loss was nearer 100,000. In other words, he lost about twice as many men as Lee had in order to take a position which he could ha
J. E. Johnston (search for this): chapter 3.20
uthern 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 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
Stonewall Jackson (search for this): chapter 3.20
Editorial Paragraphs. General Grant's table-talk has of late excited a good deal of attention and comment in the public press. A number of Northern papers have had severe criticisms of statements in reference to different Federal Generals, but of these we have nothing to say; nor do we propose any 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 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 i
George Meade (search for this): chapter 3.20
ers, because they did the work in the fields which white men would have to do. I believe the South had as many men under arms as the North. What defeated the Southern arms was Northern courage and skill, and this, too, with detraction all around. You cannot imagine how disheartening it was at the time, not only to officers but men. General Grant's opinion of General Lee is a matter of small moment. General Scott pronounced him I the very best soldier I ever saw in the field. General George Meade said that he was by far the ablest Confederate General which the war produced --and the overwhelming testimony of the Northern press 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 of them ranking him as the ablest general of all history. Since such, then, is the opinion which the world holds of Robert E. Lee, his friends may well afford to pass by in silence the sneers of a man whom he out-ge
Stonewall (search for this): chapter 3.20
Editorial Paragraphs. General Grant's table-talk has of late excited a good deal of attention and comment in the public press. A number of Northern papers have had severe criticisms of statements in reference to different Federal Generals, but of these we have nothing to say; nor do we propose any 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 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 i
April 15th, 1861 AD (search for this): chapter 3.20
ave to do, it is sufficient to reply that from the first the negroes were enticed into the Federal lines — that they were enlisted by thousands in the Federal armies, and that it was very common 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 April, 1865, 2,656,553 men. Mr. Swinton, who had free access to the Confederate archives several years ago, states that 600,000 men in all were put into the Confederate service during the same period, and this estimate 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 t
May 1st, 1864 AD (search for this): chapter 3.20
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 that when the campaign of 1864 opened, General Grant (as commander-in-chief) had under his orders more men than the Confederacy mustered all 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 Department of Virginia and North Carolina59,139 Department of West Virginia30,782 Middle Department5,627 Ninth army corps20,780 So that General Grant crossed the Rapidan with 141,160 men, and had as a reserve
1860 AD (search for this): chapter 3.20
nder 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 only 7,946,111, of which 2,498,891 belonged to Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, which three States furnished more men (because of force of surrounding circumstances) to the Federal than to the Confederate armies; so that the total population upon which the Confederacy could draw was really only 5,447,220, while the United States had (exclusive of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri) a p
1864 AD (search for this): chapter 3.20
ate archives several years ago, states that 600,000 men in all were put into the Confederate service during the same period, and this estimate 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 that when the campaign of 1864 opened, General Grant (as commander-in-chief) had under his orders more men than the Confederacy mustered all 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 Department of Virginia and North Carolina59,139 Department
1 2 3 4