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
Stonewall Jackson 345 1 Browse Search
Joseph E. Johnston 292 10 Browse Search
John L. Porter 152 4 Browse Search
United States (United States) 138 0 Browse Search
Robert E. Lee 128 0 Browse Search
Robert Edward Lee 126 20 Browse Search
John M. Brooke 122 6 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 109 1 Browse Search
U. S. Grant 101 1 Browse Search
Sherman 100 4 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 19. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 126 total hits in 37 results.

1 2 3 4
Baltimore, Md. (Maryland, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.28
llowing is an account of the battle at Staunton river bridge, prepared by Colonel B. L. Farinholt, in reply to the account of that memorable engagement from the pen of General Dabney H. Maury, and which was recently published in the Times. Baltimore, Md., November 20, 1891. General Dabney H. Maury: Dear Sir: My attention has been called to a copy of The Times, of Richmond, Va., giving, over your signature, an account of the engagement between the Confederate and Federal forces which took pged the plan of battle on the left bank of the river. Colonel Henry Eaton Coleman, I consider, was a man of high sense of honor and a chivalrous, gallant officer. He was my friend. After leaving your office in Washington he came to see me in Baltimore. Knowing, as he did, my report to General Lee, and General Lee's complimentary reply to me and my command for the disposition of forces and the determination with which we made this fight, Colonel Coleman could not have been my friend and wr
Burkeville (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.28
ward and assist in completing the defences of this, the largest and most important bridge on the railroad, well knowing that if it was given up and destroyed,. from there to Danville (as the Federal forces succeeded in doing at every depot from Burkeville to Staunton bridge) our wagon train would find it impossible to fill up the long gap until the railroad could be repaired or the rolling stock replaced, and that it would consequently be next to if not quite impossible for General Lee to hold h and use of an extra large number of wagons, detailing all that could be spared from other portions of the army, under specially detached vigilant and expert quartermasters and commissaries, to cover this gap in the road from Staunton bridge to Burkeville until it could be repaired. The defences on both sides of the river, already well under way, were rendered as complete as the limited time after receiving General Beauregard's order, up to the hour of the commencement of the fight, would per
Staunton River, Va. (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.28
The Staunton river fight. [from the Richmond times, November 22, 1891.] Colonel Farinholt replies to General Dabney Maury—Certain alleged Errors Corrected—Another account of that famous Engagem he wrote, but received no reply from him.] The following is an account of the battle at Staunton river bridge, prepared by Colonel B. L. Farinholt, in reply to the account of that memorable engagrected and superintended myself, including the rifle-pits on the north and east sides of the Staunton river. Colonel Coleman's position. Your statement says Colonel Coleman assumed command of ertaining me as a compliment for the most gallant defence, as he pleased to term it, made of Staunton river bridge, his home and household goods, I cannot think for a moment Colonel Flournoy would havTimes of the 27th of September, containing General Dabney H. Maury's account of the fight at Staunton river bridge in June, 1864, came duly to hand. Of course it was unintentional, but nevertheless
Richmond (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.28
y states that he was anxious to hear from Colonel Farinholt, to whom he wrote, but received no reply from him.] The following is an account of the battle at Staunton river bridge, prepared by Colonel B. L. Farinholt, in reply to the account of that memorable engagement from the pen of General Dabney H. Maury, and which was recently published in the Times. Baltimore, Md., November 20, 1891. General Dabney H. Maury: Dear Sir: My attention has been called to a copy of The Times, of Richmond, Va., giving, over your signature, an account of the engagement between the Confederate and Federal forces which took place at Staunton River bridge, on the Richmond and Danville railroad, on the 25th of June, 1864 (you say the 24th), Believing you would not misrepresent the facts intentionally, and would not knowingly minimize the just deserts of one officer to aggrandize the fame and add to the laurels of another, and feeling sure that after the lapse of so many years you have either mi
Danville (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.28
ist in completing the defences of this, the largest and most important bridge on the railroad, well knowing that if it was given up and destroyed,. from there to Danville (as the Federal forces succeeded in doing at every depot from Burkeville to Staunton bridge) our wagon train would find it impossible to fill up the long gap untnot have been my friend and written the friendly letter he did, had he believed me to have claimed any honors due to him. Colonel R. E. Withers, commandant at Danville at the time, knew all about the fight. He most efficiently aided me with all the men at his command when I telegraphed him the situation, and the Danville contithe charge committed to you, I am very respectfully four obedient servant, R. E. Lee, General. Colonel Withers' congratulations. Commandant's office, Danville, June 27, 1864. Captain Fairinholt, Commanding Staunton River Bridge: Captain: I beg leave to offer you my congratulations on the very handsome and successful
Boydton (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.28
rs, and our children deprived of such honor and credit as our contemporaries and posterity think but just to award us. I am, most respectfully, B. L. Farinholt. N. B.—I also append extracts from a letter from Captain W. T. Atkins, of Boydton, Va., who most efficiently aided as my adjutant in carrying out the details of the engagement, being himself frequently exposed to the severest fire of the enemy in doing so. Report to General Lee. headquarters army of Northern Virginiaave captured a considerable number of repeating rifles, if so you can turn one over to me. I should be glad to get one. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, R. E. Withers, Colonel Commanding Post. What Captain Atkins says. Boydton, Va., November 9, 1891. Colonel B. L. Farinholt: My Dear Sir: Your letter, with a copy of the Richmond Times of the 27th of September, containing General Dabney H. Maury's account of the fight at Staunton river bridge in June, 1864, came duly to
Mecklenburg (North Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.28
against twenty-five hundred of the enemy. This is a mistake: we still have enough credit left, and it may be correctly termed a remarkable victory, when, as I find by reference to my report, we had nine hundred anh thirty-eight men—of these only one hundred and fitty veterans, the remainder being the gallant reserves and citizens from adjacent counties, who deserve all the encomiums you have bestowed upon them. In the management of these I was ably assisted by Captain T. T. Boswell, of Mecklenburg. The enemy had six thousand well-trained and splendidly-equipped troops, over three thousand of whom advanced to the charge repeatedly on our small force, being as often disastrously repelled. Another mistake. Your description is in error in stating that General Wilson made his headquarters on McPhail's lawn, from whence he could view the field of battle and all of its approaches. Really, neither Staunton bridge nor but few of its approaches can be seen from McPhail's residence or
Henry Eaton Coleman (search for this): chapter 1.28
nd east sides of the Staunton river. Colonel Coleman's position. Your statement says ColoneColonel Coleman assumed command of the forces at the bridge and prepared the defences; on the contrary, CColonel Coleman reported to me for service only a short time before the engagement actually began. nge. This was all done before I had seen Colonel Coleman, and well do I remember the words of gallween the devil and the deep sea. After Colonel Coleman reported to me I placed him in command ofee of the engagement, causing him to give Colonel Coleman due consideration in his congratulatory o of the river in this engagement, or that Colonel Coleman would have claimed for himself what your tle on the left bank of the river. Colonel Henry Eaton Coleman, I consider, was a man of high sensthe enemy. I regret the painful wound of Colonel Coleman, of the Twelfth North Carolina, who exhibto you for and obeying your orders. Colonel H. E. Coleman did not reach the bridge until the mor[3 more...]
Wilson (search for this): chapter 1.28
ans, the remainder being the gallant reserves and citizens from adjacent counties, who deserve all the encomiums you have bestowed upon them. In the management of these I was ably assisted by Captain T. T. Boswell, of Mecklenburg. The enemy had six thousand well-trained and splendidly-equipped troops, over three thousand of whom advanced to the charge repeatedly on our small force, being as often disastrously repelled. Another mistake. Your description is in error in stating that General Wilson made his headquarters on McPhail's lawn, from whence he could view the field of battle and all of its approaches. Really, neither Staunton bridge nor but few of its approaches can be seen from McPhail's residence or lawn, which is (or was in 1864) obstructed from any extensive view by intervening woods. I had the pleasure of knowing all of the family except Major Mc-Phail, who was absent with his command at the front. And I designedly had the empty trains frequently run back and f
Mc-Phail (search for this): chapter 1.28
force, being as often disastrously repelled. Another mistake. Your description is in error in stating that General Wilson made his headquarters on McPhail's lawn, from whence he could view the field of battle and all of its approaches. Really, neither Staunton bridge nor but few of its approaches can be seen from McPhail's residence or lawn, which is (or was in 1864) obstructed from any extensive view by intervening woods. I had the pleasure of knowing all of the family except Major Mc-Phail, who was absent with his command at the front. And I designedly had the empty trains frequently run back and forth between our defences and Clover depot, while the enemy were approaching and deploying, our men being instructed to huzza on the arrival of every train, thus giving plausibility to the report of Mrs. McPhail to the Federal commander, and giving him apparently good reason to believe we were rapidly being reinforced. I do not think, General, that any of us deserve very gr
1 2 3 4