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
Robert E. Lee 270 4 Browse Search
Stonewall Jackson 180 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 174 0 Browse Search
U. S. Grant 159 1 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 145 1 Browse Search
North Carolina (North Carolina, United States) 128 0 Browse Search
James Longstreet 119 1 Browse Search
John Sherman 113 1 Browse Search
A. P. Hill 108 0 Browse Search
Ambrose Powell Hill 99 11 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 20. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 406 total hits in 97 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
California (California, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.11
hat the Confederate President was disingenuous in this matter. If merit based on services had been considered in the appointments J. E. Johnston must inevitably have headed the list, for his ability and energy had largely contributed to win the first battle at a date when Lee was hardly known outside of Richmond and before the other Johnston had entered upon active service. There are grounds for the supposition that Davis withheld action purposely until the arrival of A. S. Johnston from California, whom he intended to be a beneficiary. Cooper was an old-time Washington favorite and crony, and it is well known the president was infatuated with Sidney Johnston. Undoubtedly both these appointments, however excellent, were dictated by an obstinate personal favoritism. Lee's subsequent career in a sense certainly vindicated the President's action in selecting him to rank Johnston, but this cannot be said of Albert Sidney Johnston. As commander in the West he signally failed to comp
Atlanta (Georgia, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.11
fully retreated before Sherman from Dalton to Atlanta, covering a distance of one hundred miles anded, the case is practically closed with these Atlanta volumes, which carry affairs down to when DavSherman's advance, superseded him in front of Atlanta with General John B. Hood, July 17, 1864, thos own terms, and was gradually pushed back to Atlanta, in what is generally admitted to have been ar spur from Richmond, followed by the loss of Atlanta. With depleted forces he finally took the gee fight, and that he did not intend to defend Atlanta. This is the essential point made in all Davim in the Bull Run, Peninsular, Vicksburg and Atlanta campaigns. And, it must be confessed, the of retreat, and cite the stubborn fights before Atlanta and at Franklin as proof of it. His ultimate had been placed in command, instead of Hood, Atlanta would have been saved. Finally, in general, dorsed upon Johnston's official report of his Atlanta operations: November 12, 1864. The case
Dalton, Ga. (Georgia, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.11
n them we have the full text of many important reports and orders never before printed, as well as a good deal of correspondence more or less valuable and interesting. Not the least instructive part of these popular volumes of war records is that which relates to General Joseph E. Johnston, who was removed from the command of the Confederate army just before that great campaign closed, after he had fought with varying success, and, at all events, successfully retreated before Sherman from Dalton to Atlanta, covering a distance of one hundred miles and a period of seventy days. This event was the culmination of a quarrel of long standing between Jefferson Davis and General Johnston. Although maintained with a sort of stilted dignity calculated and doubtless intended to deceive the outside world, beneath all it was the deepest, bitterest personal feud of the war, and, like most antagonisms in high place, was apparently without adequate cause. There never was any real concord betwe
Montgomery (Alabama, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.11
Lee. Johnston soon ceased to annoy the executive as general — in chief of the Virginia army. At the battle of Fair Oaks he was unfortunately wounded, and Lee succeeded to and ever after retained the command of that army. It is said that Johnston viewed his successor with jealous suspicion, perhaps even dislike, but Lee's reputation was so overshadowingly great and well established that he did not venture to attack it openly. He notes a singular fact, that two telegrams from Davis at Montgomery in the spring of 1861, directed to him through General Lee, offering him a brigadier-generalcy, were never delivered. His friends say Johnston always felt that he should have been reinstated in the Virginia command after his recovery. But public opinion warranted and even compelled Davis to assign Johnston to the chief western command in the following November. It included the departments of Bragg, Pemberton, Holmes and others. He at once began urging the policy of concentration, but
Bull Run, Va. (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.11
otified Johnston, in answer to an inquiry made while he was marching to reinforce Beauregard at Bull Run, in July, that he ranked as general. This was before any nominations were made. Yet on the 31—such as characterized the movement of Joe Johnston in the previous July to the battle-field of Bull Run, which stopped the Federals in Virginia. But after idly observing the battle from afar, with tBull Run battle. The growing Southern dissatisfaction because the loudly heralded victory of Bull Run did not at once end the war was vigorously used in the fall of 1861 to foment opposition to the he holds the two generals wholly accountable for the failure to achieve valuable results after Bull Run. In this opinion (of Johnston, at least) he is seconded by General Early, who took part in thehat while the victorious generals claimed large captures of wagons, stores, arms and cannon at Bull Run they urged their inability to advance on Washington at the heels of a routed army for want of t
West Point (Georgia, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.11
th his State, which had seceded on the 17th. He says he considered the separation permanent. Robert E. Lee resigned the colonelcy of the First Cavalry, United States army, April 25, 1861. These two men—both Virginians—had been class-mates at West Point, Lee graduating No. 2, and Johnston No. 13, in the class of '29. Samuel Cooper was colonel and adjutant-general of the United States army, and he resigned March 7, 1861, to join the Confederacy. He was born in New York, from which State he was appointed to West Point, where he graduated in 1815. Albert Sidney Johnston (killed at Shiloh), a Kentuckian by birth, but for many years a prominent citizen of Texas, graduated from West Point No. 8 of the class of '26. He resigned May 3, 1861, as colonel of the Second Cavalry and Brevet Brigadier-General United States army, and cast his fortunes with the South. March 6, 1861, a Confederate act of Congress provided for the appointment of four brigadier-generals, that being the highest g
Georgia (Georgia, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.11
is was dissatisfied, believing that Johnston had missed several opportunities to fight a successful general battle. On July 17 Johnston was superseded in the command by Hood, who immediately fought some disastrous battles under spur from Richmond, followed by the loss of Atlanta. With depleted forces he finally took the general offensive, and was defeated and practically destroyed at Franklin and before Nashville, closing the war in the West, and making possible and easy the march through Georgia and the Carolinas. Never ready for action. In brief, the cause of his removal and the ground of complaint against Johnston was that under no circumstances would he fight, and that he did not intend to defend Atlanta. This is the essential point made in all Davis' recitations concerning him in the Bull Run, Peninsular, Vicksburg and Atlanta campaigns. And, it must be confessed, the official records go far toward corroborating the President's estimate of his general's character. His
Maryland (Maryland, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.11
e heat of the quarrel, makes conflicting statements. Johnston, in summing up, argues that the Confederates were too weak for offensive operations, yet at the Fairfax conference, September 30, we find him perfectly willing, apparently, to invade Maryland with an army of sixty thousand men. And he makes cause against the president for professing to be unable to reinforce the army to that extent. This point he cites to show that the president was never willing to give him force enough and that when properly equipped he favored aggression. It is not probable, however, that Johnston was really anxious to invade Maryland. Four weeks later his effective force was forty-seven thousand two hundred, and on December 31, 1861, fifty-seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven, yet he made no offensive movement. But relative conditions may have changed. The Antietam and Gettysburg campaigns in the East and the Bragg and Hood invasions in the West undeniably demonstrate the correctness of Joh
Durham, Conn. (Connecticut, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.11
efferson Davis and General Johnston. Although maintained with a sort of stilted dignity calculated and doubtless intended to deceive the outside world, beneath all it was the deepest, bitterest personal feud of the war, and, like most antagonisms in high place, was apparently without adequate cause. There never was any real concord between the two men from the day Johnston assumed command at Harper's Ferry, May 23, 1861, until the war closed with Davis' flight and Johnston's surrender at Durham's station, April 26, 1865. Many of the misfortunes of the Confederacy can be directly traced to the hostility between Davis and Johnston, and no doubt their dissentions were of direct and material benefit to the North. It must be true that many things were done and many other things left undone by both which would have been otherwise but for their eternal controversies. Their estrangement had its beginning in a question of rank raised by Johnston, which grew until it poisoned the whole
Fort Donelson (Tennessee, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.11
dictated by an obstinate personal favoritism. Lee's subsequent career in a sense certainly vindicated the President's action in selecting him to rank Johnston, but this cannot be said of Albert Sidney Johnston. As commander in the West he signally failed to comprehend the natural lines of Federal advance into the interior and his dispositions to meet the central attack were painfully feeble. Grant, with a small force, was permitted to leisurely advance and capture the isolated post of Donelson and thereby, without further effort, drive him out of Kentucky three hundred miles south into Mississippi. A bold, energetic concentration at the threatened point might have stopped Grant and probably held the line of Kentucky many months longer—such as characterized the movement of Joe Johnston in the previous July to the battle-field of Bull Run, which stopped the Federals in Virginia. But after idly observing the battle from afar, with troops enough to turn the scale, when all was ove
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...