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
Generell Ewell (search for this): chapter 5
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 HillEwell'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 Confederaf 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 Stuart's also, as othettempt 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.
Buford (search for this): chapter 5
ion, 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 rBuford'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,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 offers in support of his estimate a
Rodes (search for this): chapter 5
e 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 soldiRodes 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 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 tr
Meade (search for this): chapter 5
men. These Federal losses are of course not included in Gen. Meade's aggregate of 23,186 lost.-- has omitted Ewell's loss ave the infantry strength of the two armies as 239: 163. If Meade had 95,000 men on the ield, as he testifies, then deductingng but those present for duty in both instances. Again, Gen. Meade in his testimony about Gettysburg before the committee o,000 men-about 95,000. In the face of both Butterfield and Meade, Dr. Bates assumes that these figures represent the numbersum total was reduced to 72,000. Now is it credible that Gen. Meade testified, under oath, that his strength upon that battln for an exaggeration of his numbers, but the contrary? Gen. Meade was not capable of being influenced by any reason in sund the teamsters, &c., while the Confederate did not. If Gen. Meade did not mean that his army present for duty numbered 95, 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 t
Swinton (search for this): chapter 5
ate strength is a statement, reported as coming from Gen. Longstreet, that Lee had at Gettysburg 67,000 bayonets, or above 70,000 of all arms. These numbers, Mr. Swinton says (see his Army of the Potomac), were given him by Longstreet, in an interview soon after the war. Now, Mr. Swinton may have misunderstood Gen. Longstreet, aMr. Swinton may have misunderstood Gen. Longstreet, and probably did, for this officer, in a letter on the batte of Gettysburg to the New Orleans Republican, dated February 16th, 1876, says that the strength of the two divisions, of Hood's and McLaws, was but 13,000 in all. These divisions each contained four brigades. The remaining division of Longstreet's corps (Pickett's) contai,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.)
Philadelphia Times (search for this): chapter 5
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 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 Stuart's also, as otherwise his statement is confusing and inaccurate. I have carefully re-examined Dr. Bates' statement, as well as
Pickett (search for this): chapter 5
st, 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 correctneh of the two divisions, of Hood's and McLaws, was but 13,000 in all. These divisions each contained four brigades. The remaining division of Longstreet's corps (Pickett's) contained only three brigades, and these were less in strength than the average. The highest Confederate estimate of Pickett's division I have found puts it aPickett'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 abo
Butterfield (search for this): chapter 5
uotes the return of the Federal army on June 10th, as given by Gen. Butterfield in his testimony. On that day the infantry corps numbered 78,st, increased this number to 99,000. It is unnecessary to quote Butterfield's testimony at length; but it is evident from it, as given on ppwas a little over 100,000 men-about 95,000. In the face of both Butterfield and Meade, Dr. Bates assumes that these figures represent the nuns show the true numbers standing in the ranks. In this record (Butterfield's return ), the First corps is credited with 11,350; but we knowy 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 Ju 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 fro any explanation of the discrepancy between the numbers given by Butterfield and Doubleday for the strength of the First corps; but it seems
April, 1868 AD (search for this): chapter 5
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. C. S. Venable, his Military Secretary. The former places the Confederate strength of
October 15th, 1865 AD (search for this): chapter 5
y 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 offers in support
1 2 3 4 5 6