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
United States (United States) 324 0 Browse Search
Richmond (Virginia, United States) 294 28 Browse Search
Virginia (Virginia, United States) 262 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 210 2 Browse Search
Andersonville, Ga. (Georgia, United States) 177 1 Browse Search
Washington (United States) 162 2 Browse Search
Arkansas (Arkansas, United States) 116 0 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 114 0 Browse Search
Georgia (Georgia, United States) 106 0 Browse Search
William T. Sherman 105 1 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 1. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 574 total hits in 126 results.

... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ...
J. H. Winder (search for this): chapter 3.18
thorized their issue, and I so telegraphed General Winder. Colonel Chandler's recommendations are co Thank God that Richmond is at last rid of old Winder; God have mercy upon those to whom he has been that he had been officially informed that General Winder, on being called on in August for a respon to investigate the issues between him and General Winder touching this report. He seems to feel hin the other side. The controversy between General Winder and Colonel Chandler was never brought to el Chandler's report wilfully injurious to General Winder, and supposed that it was the result of th, generally, that it severely reflected on General Winder, and while it induced calls for explanation and defence from General Winder, it at the same time, from its terms, inspired an impression of corepresentations of this report, or condemn General Winder without investigation and response from hiondition met the promptest attention; that General Winder was at once asked to explain the charges m[7 more...]
Joseph E. Johnston (search for this): chapter 3.18
rough the usual channels, he went in person to Washington, into the office of Secretary Stanton, told him the whole story, and urged prompt action, but got no reply. Nor was a reply vouchsafed to this offer until the latter part of December, 1864; meanwhile some fifteen thousand men had died. If these be the facts, who is responsible? My deliberate conviction at the time, and ever since, has been that the authorities at Washington considered thirty thousand men, just in the rear of General Johnston's army in Georgia, drawing their rations from the same stores from which his army had to be fed, would be better used up there than in the Federal ranks, in view of the fact that they could recruit their armies, while we had exhausted our material; that the refusal to exchange prisoners, and the denial of our offers in regard to the sick at Andersonville, was part of the plan of attrition. It will be remembered that the friends of Federal soldiers in prison at the South had become clamo
S. Cooper (search for this): chapter 3.18
artments were applied to, and authorized their issue, and I so telegraphed General Winder. Colonel Chandler's recommendations are coincided in. By order of General Cooper. R. H. Chilton, Assistant Adjutant and Inspector-General. Not content with this, Colonel Chandler testifies that he went to the War Office himself, and had an interview with the Assistant Secretary, J. A. Campbell, who then wrote below General Cooper's endorsement the following: These reports show a condition of things at Andersonville, which calls very loudly for the interposition of the Department, in order that a change may be made. J. A. Campbell, Assistant Secretary ould be kindly treated and amply provided with food to the extent of our means, and they both used their best means and exertions to these ends. Yours truly, S. Cooper. To Dr. R. R. Stevenson, Stewiacke, Nova Scotia: The two following letters need no comment, except to call attention to the fact that General Beauregard's
Barnes (search for this): chapter 3.18
not?--on the 19th of July, 1866--send to the library and get it — exhibits the fact that of the Federal prisoners in Confederate hands during the war, only 22,576 died, while of the Confederate prisoners in Federal hands 26,436 died. And Surgeon-General Barnes reports in an official report — I suppose you will believe him — that in round numbers the Confederate prisoners in Federal hands amounted to 220,000, while the Federal prisoners in Confederate hands amounted to 270,000. Out of the 270,0 and in rags, it is true; but a healthier, hardier set of fellows never marched or fought, and they died in Northern prisons (as we shall hereafter show) because of inexcusably harsh treatment. These official figures of Mr. Stanton and Surgeon-General Barnes tell the whole story, and nail to the counter the base slander against the Confederate Government. Failure to make a case against Mr. Davis. But a crowning proof that this charge of cruelty to prisoners is false; may be more clearly<
George W. Brent (search for this): chapter 3.18
that a public use in the present heated and embittered condition of political affairs would result in no practical use, and might possibly create unnecessary prejudice against those now living and to Southern interests. Very truly yours, George W. Brent. New Orleans, February 15, 1876. My Dear Sir — I regret to find from your letter of inquiry, that General Sherman seeks to extenuate one of those violations of the rules of civilized warfare, which characterized his campaign through Gtely after the fall of Savannah, that General Sherman himself had put Confederate prisoners to this extraordinary use in his approach to that city, as also at the capture of Fort McAllister, and I thereupon made, through my Chief of Staff, Colonel G. W. Brent, a requisition on our Commissary of Prisoners of War, General Winder, for a detachment of Federal prisoners, to be employed in retaliation, should the occasion occur. I further recollect that your brother answered that, under his instruct
Unionists (search for this): chapter 3.18
the paragraph was true, both as to the class received and those sent off; that not one Confederate soldier in service was received at that time; that scarcely any one of the three hundred and fifty had been in prison a month; that all of them had been recently arrested as sympathizers with the Confederate cause; that those sent off were miserable wretches indeed, mostly robbers and incendiaries from Western Virginia, who were Confederates when Confederate armies occupied their country, and Unionists when Federal troops held it, and who in turn preyed upon one side and the other, and so pillaged that portion of the State that it had almost been given over to desolation; that they were men without character or principle, who were ready to take any oath or engage in any work of plunder; that I then reiterated what I had before written — that they were a set of miserable wretches ; that the Federal soldiers who had passed through my hands knew well, I hoped, that I would not have applied
James Lyons (search for this): chapter 3.18
Report of Colonel D. T. Chandler, which was introduced at the Wirz trial, and upon which the Radical press has been ringing the charges ever since. It has been recently thus put in a malignant reply, in a partisan sheet, to Mr. Davis' letter to Mr. Lyons: On the 5th day of August, 1864, Colonel Chandler, an officer of the Confederate army, made a report to the Rebel War Department regarding the condition of Andersonville prison. He had made one six months before, but no attention had been paid to it. In his last report he said: My duty requires me respectfully to recommend a change in the officer in the command of the post, Brigadier-General J. H. Winder, and the substitution in his place of some one who unites both energy and good judgment with some feeling of humanity and consideration for the welfare and comfort (so far as it is consistent with their safe-keeping) of the vast number of unfortunates placed under his control; some one who at least will not advocate
John E. Mulford (search for this): chapter 3.18
aptain Welford's investigations and conferences with friends in Washington, was that it was not deemed judicious for Mr. Seddon to be represented directly by counsel, but that he should place his materials of defence and explanation touching the Chandler report in the hands of Wirz's counsel; and this was done. The Government had gone into all this matter, and the response, therefore, on every principle of fair dealing or of law, was legitimate in that cause. Colonel Robert Ould and General J. E. Mulford, therefore, were summoned to show what the action of the Confederate Government on Colonel Chandler's report was. Judge Ould attended, and General Mulford was prepared to do so and to corroborate him. Judge Ould, as Mr. Welford informed me, unless my memory is at fault, was prepared to state that as soon as Colonel Chandler's report was presented to Mr. Seddon, the latter sent for him and showed the terrible mortality prevailing at Andersonville, instructed him to go down James river
G. W. Anderson (search for this): chapter 3.18
that garrison then prisoners, to remove all the torpedoes in front of the fort which might remain unexploded; gallant soldiers who, under their commander, Major G. W. Anderson, had only succumbed as each man was individually overpowered. （General Hazen's official report). Major Anderson, in his report, says: This hazardous duty Major Anderson, in his report, says: This hazardous duty (removal of the torpedoes) was performed without injury to any one; but it appearing to me as an unwarrantable and improper treatment of prisoners of war, I have thought it right to refer to it in this report. General Sherman might with equal right have pushed a body of prisoners in front of an assaulting column to serve as a gab, from the day of the capitulation of Fort Sumter, in 1861, when, in order to save a brave soldier and his command from all unnecessary humiliation, I allowed Major Anderson the same terms offered him before the attack--i. e., to salute his flag with fifty guns, and to go forth with colors flying and drums beating,. taking off com
L. C. Baker (search for this): chapter 3.18
s yet. Now, sir, there is a witness on this subject. Wirz was condemned; found guilty, sentenced to be executed; and I have now before me the written statement of his counsel, a Northern man and a Union man. He gave this statement to the country, and it has never been contradicted. Hear what this gentleman says: On the night before the execution of the prisoner Wirz, a telegram was sent to the Northern press from this city, stating that Wirz had made important disclosures to General L. C. Baker, the well known detective, implicating Jefferson Davis, and that the confession would probably be given to the public. On the same evening some parties came to the confessor of Wirz, Rev. Father Boyle, and also to me as his counsel, one of them informing me that a high Cabinet officer wished to assure Wirz that if he would implicate Jefferson Davis with atrocities committed at Andersonville, his sentence would be commuted. The messenger requested me to inform Wirz of this. In prese
... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ...