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
Charles Wallace Howard (search for this): chapter 5
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 byHoward'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 the discrepancy between the numbers given by Butterfield and Doubleday for the strength of the First corps; but it seems evident, if Gen. Doubleday is correct, that some transfer of troops must have taken place between June 10th and July 1st; or
Reynold (search for this): chapter 5
t battle-field was 95,000 men, when it was only 72,000? When, too, there was no conceivable reason for an exaggeration of his numbers, but the contrary? Gen. Meade was not capable of being influenced by any reason in such a matter but a desire to tell the truth; but the circumstances attending his testimony show how unfounded is Dr. Bates' statement. Let us examine for a moment the process by which Dr. Bates arrives at his 72,000. In the return given by Butterfield, the First corps (Reynold's) numbered, June 10th, 11,350. On July 1st it went into battle, Dr. Bates says, with 8,200-decrease 3,150. This ratio of decrease is then applied without hesitation to all the other corps, and no explanation is attempted of the fact. The Federal army is thus shorn of onefourth its strength, though it had not suffered meantime from any battles, hard marches, or peculiar sickness, but had received on the contrary all the accession the Federal government, under the spur of invasion, could
Benjamin Wade (search for this): chapter 5
ranks. It may be well to mention, in regard to the 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 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 of
Reynolds (search for this): chapter 5
s strength, though it had not suffered meantime from any battles, hard marches, or peculiar sickness, but had received on the contrary all the accession the Federal government, under the spur of invasion, could hasten to its assistance. Had Dr. Bates been a soldier he could not have made such a statement. The source from which Dr. Bates derives the number of the First corps on July 1st, is no doubt Doubleday's testimony. This officer commanded that corps on that day, after the fall of Reynolds, and in a statement before the committee on the conduct of war, strongly marked by bad temper and a vivid imagination, he says, among other things: According to reports rendered to me, we entered the fight with 8;200 men in the First corps, and came out with 2,450 men. He says further: I do not believe 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 jo
William Allan (search for this): chapter 5
Gen. Lee's strength and losses at Gettysburg. By Col. William Allan. [The following is in reply to a letter of the Secretary, enclosing a letter received from a distinguished foreign critic commenting on Col. Allan's review of Bates' Gettysburg.Col. Allan's review of Bates' Gettysburg. As the letter of our foreign correspondent was a private one we suppress his name, though we do not think proper to withhold Col. Allan's able and conclusive reply.] McDoNOUGH School, April 24th, 1877. my dear Dr.: I regret that a press of engaCol. Allan's able and conclusive reply.] McDoNOUGH School, April 24th, 1877. my dear Dr.: I regret that a press of engagements has prevented an earlier reply to your kind letter, enclosing that 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.-Genthe latter point. Hoping will carefully examine the original sources of information in regard to the matters treated by Dr. Bates, whose book may be conscientiously, but is certainly not carefully compiled, I am, most truly yours, W. Allan.
Walter H. Taylor (search for this): chapter 5
0 effective men. (See Gen. 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, of the statements furnished to him in regard to his strength at Gettysburg, by two members of his staff; Col. W. H. Taylor, his Assistant Adjutant-General, and Col. C. S. Venable, his Military Secretary. The former places the Confederate strength of all arms on that battle-field at 61,000; the latter at 55,000. 3. Out of the 68,352 men, which constituted the entire force for duty in the Department of 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 repo
Garnett (search for this): chapter 5
ber and strength of the regiments, even if correct, would give no support to Dr. Bates' conclusions. As to the number of the regiments, I distinctly adopted Dr. Bates' roster. He gives 163 (not 167 as — has it) as the number of Confederate infantry regiments present. His roster is incorrect in several particulars. For instance, he enumerates the First, Seventh and Fourteenth S. C. regiments twice (page 308); gives eight regiments to O'Neal's brigade, which only contained five; and omits Garnett's brigade, of Pickett's division, altogether. (I will send you a correct roster as soon as I can get at the data.) But these and some other errors do not destroy its general correctness for the purpose in view, and as my object was to show Dr. B.'s inconsistency, I of course used the roster as he gives it. I have no means of verifying the Federal roster, but assume its accuracy as a matter of course. Now if we take merely the lists of regiments, assuming them to be equally full, we have
O'Neal (search for this): chapter 5
o 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 Dr. Bates' conclusions. As to the number of the regiments, I distinctly adopted Dr. Bates' roster. He gives 163 (not 167 as — has it) as the number of Confederate infantry regiments present. His roster is incorrect in several particulars. For instance, he enumerates the First, Seventh and Fourteenth S. C. regiments twice (page 308); gives eight regiments to O'Neal's brigade, which only contained five; and omits Garnett's brigade, of Pickett's division, altogether. (I will send you a correct roster as soon as I can get at the data.) But these and some other errors do not destroy its general correctness for the purpose in view, and as my object was to show Dr. B.'s inconsistency, I of course used the roster as he gives it. I have no means of verifying the Federal roster, but assume its accuracy as a matter of course. Now if we take merely the lists o
Charles S. Venable (search for this): chapter 5
, 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, of the statements furnished to him in regard to his strength at Gettysburg, by two members of his staff; Col. W. H. Taylor, his Assistant Adjutant-General, and Col. C. S. Venable, his Military Secretary. The former places the Confederate strength of all arms on that battle-field at 61,000; the latter at 55,000. 3. Out of the 68,352 men, which constituted the entire force for duty in the Department of 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.)
Badeau (search for this): chapter 5
ighest Confederate estimate of Pickett's division I have found puts it at 4,000. This would make Longstreet's corps 17,000. And averaging the other corps at the same, would 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. 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, of the statements furnished to him in regard to his strength at Gettysburg, by two members of his staff; Col. W. H. Taylor, his Assistant Adjutant-General, and Col
1 2 3 4 5 6