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
U. S. Grant 618 0 Browse Search
William T. Sherman 585 15 Browse Search
Charleston (South Carolina, United States) 560 2 Browse Search
Atlanta (Georgia, United States) 372 0 Browse Search
Joseph E. Johnston 333 11 Browse Search
George G. Meade 325 5 Browse Search
Winfield S. Hancock 321 3 Browse Search
Philip H. Sheridan 313 7 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 288 0 Browse Search
Jubal A. Early 278 6 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in Robert Underwood Johnson, Clarence Clough Buell, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War. Volume 4..

Found 43,069 total hits in 15,857 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
1600 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
d. The other guns were 32-pounder carronades and 12-pounder mortars, placed on the curtain of the battery, facing the approach from the south. Most of these had been disabled by the terrible fire opened upon them. The remaining ones were field-pieces and two 8 and 10 inch mortars, the latter being used as coehorns against the enemy's trenches. The work was strengthened and improved, its plan gradually modified; traverses and merlons, and bomb-proofs capable of sheltering some 750 men (not 1600, as General Gillmore says, p. 74 of his book), were added to it by my orders, partly before the attack, partly after, and while the enemy was still making his advance. By the addition of a light parapet which I had caused to be thrown across its gorge, Wagner had thus become a closed battery, protected from a surprise on the rear. But it never was a formidable work ; and, in fact, it fought the enemy from the 10th of July, 1863, to the 6th of September of the same year, with men, artillery,
1184 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
weakest of the line, other parts of it, further west, being but feebly guarded and poorly armed. 2. Because the forces under me in July, 1863, were much less than those under General Pemberton in June, 1862. 3. Because in July, 1863, I had only 1184 infantry on the whole of James Island; whereas, in order to guard the defensive lines properly, I should have had a force of at least 8000 men there. General Gillmore says, p. 12: A land attack upon Charleston was not even discussed at any of General Gillmore had at that time, according to his own estimate, 11,000 men, whom he might have easily concentrated against any special point. Supposing that point to have been the James Island lines, the weak Confederate force there stationed: 1184 infantry, would have had to withstand an overwhelming assault. Transportation was altogether inadequate, and all effort made to reenforce any of the above-named General Quincy A. Gillmore. From a photograph. localities would have necessarily
1873 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
ilence, with great coolness and precision. My orders were carried out almost to the letter. Owing to some defect in the fuses, however, the powder magazines of neither Wagner nor Gregg were exploded, although they had been lit, with all due precaution, by able officers. The wounded and sick had been first removed; then the companies were marched by detachments to the boats prepared to receive them, and embarked under the supervision of the The Battery, Charleston. From a sketch made in 1873. naval officers in command. Two companies remained in Battery Wagner, as a rear-guard, until all the others were embarked, when they also were withdrawn. Our loss was slight both in men and materials, and the Federal victory was barren. In General Gillmore's dispatch to Admiral Dahlgren, dated September 7th, 5:10 A. M., he said The whole island is ours, but the enemy have escaped us.--G. T. B. I have dwelt somewhat at length upon the details of the gradual destruction of Fort Sumter
1300 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
sted. The whole attacking squadron now slowly withdrew from an engagement which had lasted not more than two hours and twenty-five minutes, but which had been, for the enemy, a most disastrous defeat. The following are extracts from reports of officers in command or on duty that day. Colonel Rhett said: The enemy's fire was mostly ricochet and not very accurate; most of their shot passed over the fort, and several to the right and left. The greater portion of their shots were from 1300 to 1400 yards distant, which appeared to be the extent of their effective range. Some shots were from a greater distance, and did not reach the fort at all. General Ripley said: The action was purely of artillery,--forts and batteries against the iron-clad vessels of the enemy,--other means of defense, obstructions and torpedoes, not having come into play. Fort Sumter was the principal object of the attack, and to that garrison . . . special credit is due for sustaining the shock,
May (search for this): chapter 1.1
t unlike that which had prevailed there after the Confederate victory at Manassas on July 21st, 1861. It was clear to me, however, that the enemy, whose land forces had not cooperated in this naval attack, would not rest upon his defeat, but would soon make another effort, with renewed vigor, and on a larger scale. I was therefore very much concerned when, scarcely a week afterward, the War Department compelled me to send Cooke's and Clingman's commands back to North Carolina, and, early in May, two other brigades [S. R. Gist's and W. H. T. Walker's], numbering five thousand men, with two batteries of light artillery, to reenforce General Joseph E. Johnston at Jackson, Mississippi. The fact is that, on the 10th of May, Mr. Seddon, the Secretary of War, had even directed that still another force of five thousand men should be withdrawn from my department to be sent to Vicksburg to the assistance of General Pemberton. But my protest against so exhaustive a drain upon my command was
1663 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
enemy from the 10th of July, 1863, to the 6th of September of the same year, with men, artillery, and with sand. The defense of Battery Wagner, with the great difficulty of access to it and the paucity of our resources, while those of the enemy were almost unlimited, will bear a favorable comparison with any modern siege on record. The last bombardment of Wagner began on the morning of the 5th of September, and lasted 42 hours, during which were thrown by the Federal land-batteries alone 1663 rifle projectiles and 1553 mortar-shells. The total number of projectiles thrown by the land-batteries against Fort Sumter up to September 7th was 6451, and against Battery Wagner, from July 26th to September 7th, 9875, making in all 16,326. And yet only Wagner was taken. Sumter, though a mass of ruins, remained ours to the last, and Charleston was evacuated by the Confederate troops near the close of the war, namely, on the 17th of February, 1865, and. then only to furnish additional men
1861 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
The defense of Charleston. condensed from the North American review for May, 1886. see also articles in Vol. I., pp. 40-83, on the operations in Charleston harbor in 1861.--editors. by G. T. Beauregard, General, C. S. A. On the Union picket line — relieving pickets. A Telegram from General Cooper, dated Richmond, September 10th, 1862, reached me on that day in Mobile, It was to Bladon Springs, 75 miles north of Mobile, that, on the 17th of June, 1862, General Beauregard had g to the First South Carolina Infantry (regulars). These works were in very good condition, though repairs were then in progress in the former. 3. Battery Beauregard, across Sullivan's Island, the location of which I had selected in the spring of 1861, in advance of Fort Moultrie, with a view to protect the approach from the east. It was armed with five guns. 4. Four sand batteries, en barbette, erected at the west end of Sullivan's Island, and bearing on the floating boom then in process of
1553 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
uly, 1863, to the 6th of September of the same year, with men, artillery, and with sand. The defense of Battery Wagner, with the great difficulty of access to it and the paucity of our resources, while those of the enemy were almost unlimited, will bear a favorable comparison with any modern siege on record. The last bombardment of Wagner began on the morning of the 5th of September, and lasted 42 hours, during which were thrown by the Federal land-batteries alone 1663 rifle projectiles and 1553 mortar-shells. The total number of projectiles thrown by the land-batteries against Fort Sumter up to September 7th was 6451, and against Battery Wagner, from July 26th to September 7th, 9875, making in all 16,326. And yet only Wagner was taken. Sumter, though a mass of ruins, remained ours to the last, and Charleston was evacuated by the Confederate troops near the close of the war, namely, on the 17th of February, 1865, and. then only to furnish additional men to the army in the field.
1399 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
water, consequently, was as stable as that of a river; their guns were fired with deliberation, doubtless by trained artillerists. According to the enemy's statements, the fleet fired 151 shots. . . . Not more than thirty-four shots Major Echols's report puts the number at fifty-five, which it is conceded is the correct one.--G. T. B. took effect on the walls of Fort Sumter. . . . Fort Moultrie and our other batteries were not touched in a way to be considered, while in return they threw 1399 shots. At the same time Sumter discharged 810 shots; making the total number of shots fired 2209, of which the enemy reports that 520 struck the different vessels; a most satisfactory accuracy when the smallness of the target is considered. The repulse had not been looked upon as a thing possible by the North, and when the news reached that section it engendered a heavy gloom of disappointment and discouragement — a feeling not unlike that which had prevailed there after the Confederate
1887 AD (search for this): chapter 1.1
review a few passages of General Gillmore's book, published just after the war, and, as appears on its title-page, by authority. Most of its errors have already been refuted in my Morris Island report, which is given, in extenso, in the second volume of the Military operations of General Beauregard (Harper & Brothers: pp. 102 et seq.) It only remains, therefore, to comment briefly upon certain misapprehensions and false conclusions of the author. See paper by General Gillmore, written in 1887, to follow.--editors. General Gillmore was considered during the war the first engineer officer in the Federal service. Such is his standing up to this day. He had evidently been sent in command of the Department of the South, to effect what General Hunter had failed to do, to wit, the capture of Charleston. General Gillmore's book is valuable in many respects. It furnishes new and important information to the student of military history. Its tabular statements are generally accurat
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...