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
R. E. Lee 358 0 Browse Search
James Longstreet 283 3 Browse Search
J. E. B. Stuart 196 0 Browse Search
R. S. Ewell 190 2 Browse Search
Robert Edward Lee 139 9 Browse Search
United States (United States) 124 0 Browse Search
A. P. Hill 108 8 Browse Search
Stonewall Jackson 107 1 Browse Search
W. W. Kirkland 95 1 Browse Search
Robert F. Hoke 94 2 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 23. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 376 total hits in 77 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Rodes (search for this): chapter 1.36
Lee from the charge that he failed by his own blunders or mistakes. His criticism of Longstreet. What he said in criticism of General Longstreet was contained in the following sentences. After speaking of a conference General Lee had with Rodes, Ewell, and himself, held on the evening of the first day, General Early says: General Lee then determined to make the attack from our right on the enemy's left, and left us for the purpose of ordering up Longstreet's Corps in time to begin the ame upon the First and Eleventh corps that Reynolds had brought up. He says that he went to Gettysburg to find out what was in my front. He had now found it. Hill would have been driven back to Cashtown if Ewell had not come to his support. With Rodes's and Early's divisions, he had camped the night before a few miles north of Gettysburg, and had started to Cashtown when he received a note from Hill telling him he was moving to Gettysburg. The battle had then begun. Ewell, not understanding
J. A. Early (search for this): chapter 1.36
time watch and report Hooker's movements on the Potomac? Marched day and night. On June 22d General Lee had written Stuart, One column of Ewell's army (under Early) will probably move toward the Susquehanna by the Emmittsburg route—another by Chambersburg. So it was immaterial so far as giving information of Hooker's movemenneral Lee. Stuart took the most direct route to join the right of Ewell's column, marching continuously day and night to do so. When he reached York he found that Early had been ordered back to Cashtown, the appointed rendezvous of the army. About all this Colonel Marshall says nothing. 3. Colonel Marshall leaves the impressioysburg to find out what was in my front. He had now found it. Hill would have been driven back to Cashtown if Ewell had not come to his support. With Rodes's and Early's divisions, he had camped the night before a few miles north of Gettysburg, and had started to Cashtown when he received a note from Hill telling him he was movin
R. H. McKim (search for this): chapter 1.36
copies of this letter to prominent men in every corps, division, and arm of the service, with a personal letter requesting a reply. The result was a series of papers on Gettysburg from such men as Generals J. A. Early, A. L. Long, Fitz. Lee, E. B. Alexander, Cadmus Wilcox, J. B. Hood, H. Heth, L. McLaws, R. L. Walker, James H. Lane, and B. D. Fry, Colonels William H. Taylor, William Allen, J. B. Walton, J. R. Winston, and W. C. Oates, Major Scheibert, of the Prussian Engineer Corps, Captain R. H. McKim, and the Count of Paris. General Longstreet did not send me a paper, as I requested him to do, but published a second paper in the Philadelphia Times, in which he undertook to reply to his critics, who had handled his first article pretty roughly. It is clear that I was, according to the rule among editors, under not the slightest obligation to copy his papers from the Times, and yet I was so anxious to do him the fullest justice, and to have our Gettysburg series as complete as pos
Fitzhugh Lee (search for this): chapter 1.36
f February 27th, 1876, a very bitter attack on General Fitz. Lee (whose offence was that he had respectfully asfrom such men as Generals J. A. Early, A. L. Long, Fitz. Lee, E. B. Alexander, Cadmus Wilcox, J. B. Hood, H. Helished these points: Points established. 1. General Lee made no mistake in invading Pennsylvania. 2. A forward and occupied the Gettysburg heights, and General Lee ordered General Ewell to do so, but excused him weyed the orders which there is overwhelming proof General Lee gave him, to attack early in the morning, or, hadtained, and the confident expectation of winning, General Lee made no mistake in attacking on the third day. several articles, in which he bitterly criticises General Lee, ridicules Stonewall Jackson as a soldier, belitcontroversy, and kept it up—that his attacks upon General Lee have been as unjust as they have been unseemly an general on the Confederate side, and to exalt him at Lee's expense. So far as I am personally concerned, wh
William N. Pendleton (search for this): chapter 1.36
e's corps commanders at Gettysburg who did not enter upon the execution of his plans with that confidence and faith necessary to success, and hence, perhaps, it was that it was not achieved. These were all of General Early's criticisms upon General Longstreet, and it is obvious that, under the provocation of General Longstreet's previously published criticisms of General Lee, they were very mild for General Early. General Pendleton's speech. The next year, January 19, 1893, General W. N. Pendleton, General Lee's chief of artillery and his beloved friend and pastor during his residence in Lexington, made the anniversary address, in which he made the statement about General Lee's orders for the early attack which you have published, and in which, while pointing out his tardiness and its result, he spoke of General Longstreet in very complimentary terms as a brave and sturdy soldier. This address General Pendleton repeated at a number of points in the South, and then publishe
Dick Taylor (search for this): chapter 1.36
gone into the papers. The next phase. The next phase of the controversy was the publication of General Longstreet's paper in the Philadelphia Times of November 3, 1877, a very full account of the campaign and battle of Gettysburg, in which he criticised General Lee more severely than ever, and undertakes to show nine distinct mistakes which Lee made, and he (Longstreet) saw, pointed out, and remonstrated with Lee against at the time. This called forth the scathing rejoinder of General Dick Taylor, That any subject involving the possession and exercise of intellect should be clear to Longstreet and concealed from Lee is a startling proposition to those possessing knowledge of the two men. We have biblical authority for the story that the angel in the path was visible to the ass, though invisible to the seer, his master. But suppose that instead of smiting the honest, stupid animal, Balaam had caressed him and then been kicked by him, how would the story read? Especial indig
James H. Lane (search for this): chapter 1.36
ries of questions as to the causes of Lee's defeat at Gettysburg, and asking that I secure replies from leading Confederate officers, who were in position to know. I sent copies of this letter to prominent men in every corps, division, and arm of the service, with a personal letter requesting a reply. The result was a series of papers on Gettysburg from such men as Generals J. A. Early, A. L. Long, Fitz. Lee, E. B. Alexander, Cadmus Wilcox, J. B. Hood, H. Heth, L. McLaws, R. L. Walker, James H. Lane, and B. D. Fry, Colonels William H. Taylor, William Allen, J. B. Walton, J. R. Winston, and W. C. Oates, Major Scheibert, of the Prussian Engineer Corps, Captain R. H. McKim, and the Count of Paris. General Longstreet did not send me a paper, as I requested him to do, but published a second paper in the Philadelphia Times, in which he undertook to reply to his critics, who had handled his first article pretty roughly. It is clear that I was, according to the rule among editors, under n
L. McLaws (search for this): chapter 1.36
of Paris, propounding a series of questions as to the causes of Lee's defeat at Gettysburg, and asking that I secure replies from leading Confederate officers, who were in position to know. I sent copies of this letter to prominent men in every corps, division, and arm of the service, with a personal letter requesting a reply. The result was a series of papers on Gettysburg from such men as Generals J. A. Early, A. L. Long, Fitz. Lee, E. B. Alexander, Cadmus Wilcox, J. B. Hood, H. Heth, L. McLaws, R. L. Walker, James H. Lane, and B. D. Fry, Colonels William H. Taylor, William Allen, J. B. Walton, J. R. Winston, and W. C. Oates, Major Scheibert, of the Prussian Engineer Corps, Captain R. H. McKim, and the Count of Paris. General Longstreet did not send me a paper, as I requested him to do, but published a second paper in the Philadelphia Times, in which he undertook to reply to his critics, who had handled his first article pretty roughly. It is clear that I was, according to the
E. B. Alexander (search for this): chapter 1.36
storical Society, received a letter from the Count of Paris, propounding a series of questions as to the causes of Lee's defeat at Gettysburg, and asking that I secure replies from leading Confederate officers, who were in position to know. I sent copies of this letter to prominent men in every corps, division, and arm of the service, with a personal letter requesting a reply. The result was a series of papers on Gettysburg from such men as Generals J. A. Early, A. L. Long, Fitz. Lee, E. B. Alexander, Cadmus Wilcox, J. B. Hood, H. Heth, L. McLaws, R. L. Walker, James H. Lane, and B. D. Fry, Colonels William H. Taylor, William Allen, J. B. Walton, J. R. Winston, and W. C. Oates, Major Scheibert, of the Prussian Engineer Corps, Captain R. H. McKim, and the Count of Paris. General Longstreet did not send me a paper, as I requested him to do, but published a second paper in the Philadelphia Times, in which he undertook to reply to his critics, who had handled his first article pretty r
Cadmus Wilcox (search for this): chapter 1.36
, received a letter from the Count of Paris, propounding a series of questions as to the causes of Lee's defeat at Gettysburg, and asking that I secure replies from leading Confederate officers, who were in position to know. I sent copies of this letter to prominent men in every corps, division, and arm of the service, with a personal letter requesting a reply. The result was a series of papers on Gettysburg from such men as Generals J. A. Early, A. L. Long, Fitz. Lee, E. B. Alexander, Cadmus Wilcox, J. B. Hood, H. Heth, L. McLaws, R. L. Walker, James H. Lane, and B. D. Fry, Colonels William H. Taylor, William Allen, J. B. Walton, J. R. Winston, and W. C. Oates, Major Scheibert, of the Prussian Engineer Corps, Captain R. H. McKim, and the Count of Paris. General Longstreet did not send me a paper, as I requested him to do, but published a second paper in the Philadelphia Times, in which he undertook to reply to his critics, who had handled his first article pretty roughly. It is c
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8