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
Fitzhugh Lee 417 7 Browse Search
Gettysburg (Pennsylvania, United States) 407 1 Browse Search
James Longstreet 400 4 Browse Search
Generell Ewell 398 0 Browse Search
Pickett 243 17 Browse Search
A. P. Hill 218 12 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 206 0 Browse Search
Meade 193 25 Browse Search
Edward Johnson 179 3 Browse Search
Rodes 160 10 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 4. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 211 total hits in 59 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Brandy Station (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
y was engaged at Gettysburg, and that not severely, 100 or 200 added to the above will cover the entire Confederate loss during the battle and the subsequent retreat to the Potomac. Hence the statenent should have been, that the Confederate loss did not exceed 23,000 men. My error was in underestimating Hill's loss, which, in the absence of his report, I supposed not greater than the average of the other corps.-- adds to the above the losses of the Confederate cavalry in the fights of Brandy Station (June 9th), and at Aldie, &c., (June 17thto 21st,) before Lee crossed the Potomac, putting the aggregate cavalry loss during the campaign at 1,100, and thus brings up the Confederate loss to the neighborhood of 24,000 men. But with what propriety this addition should be made to the losses at GettysburgI am at aloss to perceive. The two cavalry fights mentioned cost the Federals, according to Gen. Gregg, commanding one of the Federal cavalry divisions (see Philadelphia Times, March 31st,
Williamsport (Maryland, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
d to Bates' Gettysburg. I hasten to express my acknowledgments to your correspondent for pointing out an error, into which I was led by the fact that Lieut.-Gen. A. P. Hill's report had not been published at the date of my strictures on Dr. Bates' book. In those strictures the Confederate loss at Gettysburg was estimated at not over 21,000 men. The loss actually was: In Longstreet's corps (see his report in the Southern Magazine, April, 1874), including the losses at Funkstown and Williamsport on the 6th and 10th of July7,659 In Ewell's corps (see Ewell's report in Southern Magazine, June, 1873), while north of the Potomac6,087 In Hill's corps (see Hill's report in Southern Historical Papers, Nov., 1876), including his loss of 500 at the recrossing of the Potomac8,982 Total in the three corps22,728 This was the entire loss, except that in the cavalry. As but a small portion of the Confederate cavalry was engaged at Gettysburg, and that not severely, 100 or 200 added to
Funkstown (Maryland, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
hat of in regard to Bates' Gettysburg. I hasten to express my acknowledgments to your correspondent for pointing out an error, into which I was led by the fact that Lieut.-Gen. A. P. Hill's report had not been published at the date of my strictures on Dr. Bates' book. In those strictures the Confederate loss at Gettysburg was estimated at not over 21,000 men. The loss actually was: In Longstreet's corps (see his report in the Southern Magazine, April, 1874), including the losses at Funkstown and Williamsport on the 6th and 10th of July7,659 In Ewell's corps (see Ewell's report in Southern Magazine, June, 1873), while north of the Potomac6,087 In Hill's corps (see Hill's report in Southern Historical Papers, Nov., 1876), including his loss of 500 at the recrossing of the Potomac8,982 Total in the three corps22,728 This was the entire loss, except that in the cavalry. As but a small portion of the Confederate cavalry was engaged at Gettysburg, and that not severely, 100
Aldie (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
nd that not severely, 100 or 200 added to the above will cover the entire Confederate loss during the battle and the subsequent retreat to the Potomac. Hence the statenent should have been, that the Confederate loss did not exceed 23,000 men. My error was in underestimating Hill's loss, which, in the absence of his report, I supposed not greater than the average of the other corps.-- adds to the above the losses of the Confederate cavalry in the fights of Brandy Station (June 9th), and at Aldie, &c., (June 17thto 21st,) before Lee crossed the Potomac, putting the aggregate cavalry loss during the campaign at 1,100, and thus brings up the Confederate loss to the neighborhood of 24,000 men. But with what propriety this addition should be made to the losses at GettysburgI am at aloss to perceive. The two cavalry fights mentioned cost the Federals, according to Gen. Gregg, commanding one of the Federal cavalry divisions (see Philadelphia Times, March 31st, 1877), about 1,000 men, and
Gettysburg (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
Gen. Lee's strength and losses at Gettysburg. By Col. William Allan. [The following is in reply commenting on Col. Allan's review of Bates' Gettysburg. As the letter of our foreign correspondenton of the Confederate cavalry was engaged at Gettysburg, and that not severely, 100 or 200 added to ained about 80,000 for his infantry force at Gettysburg. Then, 239: 163:: 80,000: 54,560=the Cons. Again, Gen. Meade in his testimony about Gettysburg before the committee on the conduct of the wRodes' return at Carlisle, a few days before Gettysburg, makes his total, strength of officers and ecoming from Gen. Longstreet, that Lee had at Gettysburg 67,000 bayonets, or above 70,000 of all armsor this officer, in a letter on the batte of Gettysburg to the New Orleans Republican, dated Februarin the London Standard, 1870; and article on Gettysburg, Southern Review, April, 1868.) 2. Gen. urnished to him in regard to his strength at Gettysburg, by two members of his staff; Col. W. H. Tay[4 more...]
Cemetery Hill (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
that our forces actually engaged belonging to the two corps (the First and Eleventh) amounted to over 14,000 men. There was a reserve of 3,000 or 4,000 of the Eleventh corps which did not join actually in the fight. It fired some shots from Cemetery hill, but the most of them fell short into our own front line. Now 14,000 men were wholly inadequate to contend against two immense corps of the enemy, amounting to 60,000 men, &c. This statement makes it appear that about 6,000 men of Howard's corps (Eleventh) were engaged July 1st. Add the 4,000 kept in reserve on Cemetery hill and we have Howard's strength July 1st, as near 10,000 men. On June 10th it numbered in the Lee's Strength and Losses at Gettysburg. 39 return given by Gen. Butterfield, 10,177. Why did not Dr. Bates take the ratio of decrease from this corps? This would have given him a result much nearer the truth. In the absence of the Federal official reports, it may not be proper to offer any explanation of th
Carlisle, Pa. (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
The specifications on the returns usually show what is included in the strength of armies, and generally the connection, if not direct statement, shows whether the numbers refer to the present for duty, or to the whole number borne upon the rolls, as Dr. Bates has it. In the civil war the officers on both sides had been trained in the same school, and their reports made in the same way. Frequently the Confederate reports included more than the effective fighting men. Thus Rodes' return at Carlisle, a few days before Gettysburg, makes his total, strength of officers and enlisted men, 8,052. Now, Rodes had about 6,000 muskets, or less than 7,000 effectives. The remainder were the detailed men-many'of them disabled soldiers, but all enlisted men — who filled the places of teamsters, clerks, &c. There were no employees in the Confederate army-all such places being filled by details fiom the ranks. It may be well to mention, in regard to the number of Federal troops engaged the firs
Winchester, Va. (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 5
wo cavalry fights mentioned cost the Federals, according to Gen. Gregg, commanding one of the Federal cavalry divisions (see Philadelphia Times, March 31st, 1877), about 1,000 men, and between the dates of these combats Milroy was overthrown at Winchester, with a loss of over 4,500 men. These Federal losses are of course not included in Gen. Meade's aggregate of 23,186 lost.-- has omitted Ewell's loss at Winchester, June 15th, from his aggregate of Confederate losses. He should have omitted StuWinchester, June 15th, from his aggregate of Confederate losses. He should have omitted Stuart's also, as otherwise his statement is confusing and inaccurate. I have carefully re-examined Dr. Bates' statement, as well as the other data at hand, in regard to the strength of the respective armies, but do not find any reason to doubt the general correctness of the estimates, which --thinks erroneous. As he does not give the ground for his opinion, I do not know on what he bases it. His criticism on the number and strength of the regiments, even if correct, would give no support to D
J. A. Early (search for this): chapter 5
ld give 51,000 for the entire infantry strength of Gen. Lee, or under 61,000 for every thing. Note in connection with this: 1. Gen. Lee's own statement to Gen. Early, myself and others, in which he placed his strength, when about to move northward, in June, 1863, at 60,000 effective men. (See Gen. Early's reply to Gen. BadeaGen. Early's reply to Gen. Badeau, in the London Standard, 1870; and article on Gettysburg, Southern Review, April, 1868.) 2. Gen. Lee's papers were burned at the close of the war, and he requested, in 1865, from his officers, such information as they possessed, with the intention of preparing a narrative of his campaigns. I have a copy, received from him, f Northern Virginia, at the end of May, according to the Confederate return, published by Swinton, Gen. Lee could hardly have taken over 60,000 with him. 4. Gen. Early's careful estimate. (See his report, Southern Magazine, September and October, 1872.) 5: The number of regiments on each side as given by Dr. Bates himself
Pleasanton (search for this): chapter 5
e number of Federal troops engaged the first day, that Dr. Bates gives a widely different strength to Buford's cavalry division from that assigned to it by Gen, Pleasanton, who, as Commander-in-Chief of the Federal cavalry, should, next to Buford himself, have known the truth. Dr. Bates says that the cavalry engaged the first day (Buford's) amounted to 2,200 men. Pleasanton puts Buford's strength at 4,000. (See Pleasanton's report to Hon. Ben. Wade, Oct. 15, 1865.) In regard to the Confederate strength, Dr. Bates' conclusions are scarcely worthy of criticism. Were we at this late day seriously to attempt to determine Meade's force by giving the estiPleasanton's report to Hon. Ben. Wade, Oct. 15, 1865.) In regard to the Confederate strength, Dr. Bates' conclusions are scarcely worthy of criticism. Were we at this late day seriously to attempt to determine Meade's force by giving the estimates made of it at the time of the battle, by Lee, or Longstreet, or Ewell, or by citizens, we would expose ourselves to the ridicule of., and of every other intelligent man. Yet this is what Dr. Bates has done in regard to Lee's force. The only scrap of respectable evidence he offers in support of his estimate as to the Confede
1 2 3 4 5 6