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 369 33 Browse Search
Stonewall Jackson 359 1 Browse Search
Frederick Grant 268 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 246 0 Browse Search
Braxton Bragg 242 8 Browse Search
Robert E. Lee 224 0 Browse Search
Jubal A. Early 221 5 Browse Search
Robert Lee 215 1 Browse Search
Robert Edward Lee 193 35 Browse Search
Sheridan 180 2 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 11. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 299 total hits in 71 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
John Rodgers (search for this): chapter 5
from her moorings and steamed down to take a hand in the fight. As soon as her smoke was seen the entire fleet fled, and again took refuge below the guns of Old Point, where the Merrimac declined to pursue, for reasons satisfactory to her gallant commander. III. From this time, until the 10th of May, the Merrimac maintained the same attitude. On that day she was blown up by her commander in consequence of the evacuation of Norfolk by the Confederates. Then, and not till then, Commodore John Rodgers was sent up the James river with the Galena, Monitor, and Naugatuck, all iron-clads, to attack Drewry's Bluff or Fort Darling, and make an attempt on Richmond. IV. The above facts go to show what Flag-officer Goldsborough thought of the Merrimac, and in citing them, I wish it to be understood that I intend to cast no imputations upon him and his gallant officers. I have been told by some of them that he had positive orders from his government not to attack the Merrimac; and I b
H. B. Littlepage (search for this): chapter 5
hern Historical Society in the capitol of Virginia. With high respect your obedient servant, Dabney H. Maury, Chairman Executive Committeee S. H S. Midshipman Littlepage who was on the Merrimac, furnished the following to the Washington Post. Statement of midshipman Littlepage. To the Editor of The Post.—From the artimidshipman Littlepage. To the Editor of The Post.—From the article which appeared in the columns of The Post this morning, I learn that the officers and men of the Monitor have memorialized Congress for prize money for the disabling of the Merrimac by that vessel. As there is not an officer or man who was on the Monitor on that memorable occasion who does not know that the Monitor did not dis her until the night of her destruction, in justice to all concerned, and that honor may be done to whom honor is due, I simply desire the facts to be known. H. B. Littlepage. Washington, Feb. 21. The following letter from Captain W. H. Parker to the Norfolk Landmark, is also an interesting and unanswerable statement of the qu
Sumner (search for this): chapter 5
t Flag-officer Goldsborough thought of the Merrimac, and in citing them, I wish it to be understood that I intend to cast no imputations upon him and his gallant officers. I have been told by some of them that he had positive orders from his government not to attack the Merrimac; and I believe it to be case. Let us now see what some of the other officials thought. At a council of war, assembled March 13th, 1862, at Fairfax C. H., Va., present, Generals Keyes, Heintzelman, McDowell, and Sumner, it was decided that General McClellan's plan to attack Richmond by York river should be adopted; provided, first, that the enemy's vessel, Merrimac, can be neutralized. Page 55, series 1, vol. 5, official records of the Union and Confederate armies. On page 751 I find the following letter: Adjutant-General's office, Washington, March 13, 1862. Hon. Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy. Sir,—I am directed by the Secretary of War to say that he places at you disposal any transports
Dabney H. Maury (search for this): chapter 5
ich we printed in the Southern Magazine and shall reprint hereafter), settle the question beyond peradventure, and we cannot conceive that partizan influence can prevail on Congress to grant this absurd claim of the crew of the Monitor. General D. H. Maury has given a summary of the facts in the following letter addressed to Senator Johnston: Letter from General Maury. office of the Southern Historical Society, November, 1882. Senator John W. Johnston, of Virginia . Dear Sir,—At your eye-witnesses and actors in these events of high authority, and are drawn from carefully prepared narratives and reports in the office of the Southern Historical Society in the capitol of Virginia. With high respect your obedient servant, Dabney H. Maury, Chairman Executive Committeee S. H S. Midshipman Littlepage who was on the Merrimac, furnished the following to the Washington Post. Statement of midshipman Littlepage. To the Editor of The Post.—From the article which appeared in
Keyes (search for this): chapter 5
IV. The above facts go to show what Flag-officer Goldsborough thought of the Merrimac, and in citing them, I wish it to be understood that I intend to cast no imputations upon him and his gallant officers. I have been told by some of them that he had positive orders from his government not to attack the Merrimac; and I believe it to be case. Let us now see what some of the other officials thought. At a council of war, assembled March 13th, 1862, at Fairfax C. H., Va., present, Generals Keyes, Heintzelman, McDowell, and Sumner, it was decided that General McClellan's plan to attack Richmond by York river should be adopted; provided, first, that the enemy's vessel, Merrimac, can be neutralized. Page 55, series 1, vol. 5, official records of the Union and Confederate armies. On page 751 I find the following letter: Adjutant-General's office, Washington, March 13, 1862. Hon. Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy. Sir,—I am directed by the Secretary of War to say that he
G. J. Van Brunt (search for this): chapter 5
tates frigate Minnesota in the engagement of March 8th and 9th, 1862. It will be remembered that the Minnesota got aground on the 8th and remained there during the whole of the 9th. Under these circumstances it may well be imagined that Captain Van Brunt was an interested observer of the fight between the Merrimac and Monitor, and closely noted the result! Here is what he says: (the italics are mine.) United States steamer Minnesota, March 10, 1862. Sir— As soon as she got off s the ship after all hope was gone of saving her. On ascending the poop-deck, I observed that the enemy's vessels had changed their course and were heading for Craney Island. I have the honor to be, your very obedient servant, G. J. Van Brunt, Captain U. S. N. Hon. Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy. Assuming, Mr. Editor, the account of Captain Van Brunt to be correct, how does the claim that the Monitor whipped the Merrimac on that occasion stand? Respectfully, Wm. H. Parker
Tattnall (search for this): chapter 5
ttle of the 9th of March, the Merrimac went into dock to replace the prow, or ram, which had been lost in sinking the Cumberland, to exchange some of her guns, and to make some small repairs to her armor and machinery. On the 11th of April Commodore Tattnall, who had succeeded Commodore Buchanan in the command, went down with his entire squadron, consisting of the Merrimac, Patrick Henry, Jamestown, Teaser, Beaufort and Raleigh, to offer battle to the Federal fleet then lying in Hampton Roads, deral fleet lying in the same position below Old Point. Towards sunset of the first day the Merrimac fired a single gun at the enemy; it was immediately replied to by the Naugatuck, lying, I think, inside Hampton Bar. I do not know what Commodore Tattnall thought about attacking the Federal fleet as it stood, nor do I know what his instructions were, but I do know that our officers generally believed that torpedoes had been placed in the channel between Old Point and the Rip-Raps; indeed, we
Heintzelman (search for this): chapter 5
ove facts go to show what Flag-officer Goldsborough thought of the Merrimac, and in citing them, I wish it to be understood that I intend to cast no imputations upon him and his gallant officers. I have been told by some of them that he had positive orders from his government not to attack the Merrimac; and I believe it to be case. Let us now see what some of the other officials thought. At a council of war, assembled March 13th, 1862, at Fairfax C. H., Va., present, Generals Keyes, Heintzelman, McDowell, and Sumner, it was decided that General McClellan's plan to attack Richmond by York river should be adopted; provided, first, that the enemy's vessel, Merrimac, can be neutralized. Page 55, series 1, vol. 5, official records of the Union and Confederate armies. On page 751 I find the following letter: Adjutant-General's office, Washington, March 13, 1862. Hon. Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy. Sir,—I am directed by the Secretary of War to say that he places at you
Merrimac (search for this): chapter 5
for prize money by the crew of the Monitor on the ground that she disabled the Merrimac, and thus saved Washington and even New York from destruction, has revived int about the Battle in Hampton Roads between the Confederate ironclad, Virginia (Merrimac) and the Federal fleet, consisting of the Monitor (ironclad) and the Cumberlantores and munitions of war not movable were destroyed, including the Virginia (Merrimac). These facts are attested by eye-witnesses and actors in these events of hnitor for prize money for the destruction of the Confederate vessel Virginia (Merrimac) has naturally called forth many letters from those engaged in the naval operaond by York river should be adopted; provided, first, that the enemy's vessel, Merrimac, can be neutralized. Page 55, series 1, vol. 5, official records of the Unioninion, preposterous. Very respectfully, &c., Wm. H. Parker. Note.—The Merrimac was christened the Virginia by the Confederate authorities; but I have preferr
Goldsborough (search for this): chapter 5
te flag as a defiance to induce the fleet to attempt to retake them. The fleet, under Flag-officer Goldsborough, consisted of a large number of wooden vessels, some of them very heavy frigates, the nnel between Old Point and the Rip-Raps; indeed, we supposed that to be the reason why Flag-officer Goldsborough declined to fight us in the Roads; moreover, fighting the entire fleet, Monitor, Naugaand then went up to the Navy Yard to water. I think it was on the 8th day of May that Flag-officer Goldsborough took advantage of her absence to bombard Sewell's Point with a number of his vessels—tFort Darling, and make an attempt on Richmond. IV. The above facts go to show what Flag-officer Goldsborough thought of the Merrimac, and in citing them, I wish it to be understood that I intend I, II and III, I am willing to abide by the log-book of the Monitor, the dispatches of Flag officer Goldsborough, or the testimony of Commander Dana Greene, United States Navy, who was the gallant an
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8