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
A. P. Hill (search for this): chapter 5
express my acknowledgments to your correspondent for pointing out an error, into which I was led by the fact that Lieut.-Gen. A. P. Hill's report had not been published at the date of my strictures on Dr. Bates' book. In those strictures the Confede 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 Hill's report in Southern Historical Papers, Nov., 1876), including his loss of 500 at the recrossing of the 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 Confederate cavalry was engaged at Gettysburg, and that not severely, 100 or 200 added to the above will cover the ence the statenent should have been, that the Confederate loss did not exceed 23,000 men. My error was in underestimating Hill's loss, which, in the absence of his report, I supposed not greater than the average of the other corps.-- adds to the ab
McLaws (search for this): chapter 5
, 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, 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) 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 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 conne
J. E. B. Stuart (search for this): chapter 5
wo 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 the other data at hand, in regard to the strength of the respective armies, but do not find any reason to doubt the general correctness of the estimates, which --thinks erroneous. As he does not give the ground for his opinion, I do 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 D
Bates (search for this): chapter 5
en published at the date of my strictures on Dr. Bates' book. In those strictures the Confederate s, 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 day the infantry corps numbered 78,255, and Dr. Bates shows that the cavalry and the reinforcementttending 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 Firsh, 11,350. On July 1st it went into battle, Dr. Bates says, with 8,200-decrease 3,150. This ratioto the whole number borne upon the rolls, as Dr. Bates has it. In the civil war the officers on botnumber of regiments on each side as given by Dr. Bates himself. All these go to show that Gen. ent., between the Potomac and Gettysburg, as Dr. Bates imagines, he brought almost his entire force[17 more...]
H. B. Lee (search for this): chapter 5
Gen. Lee's strength and losses at Gettysburg. By Col. William Allan. [The following is in reply, and at Aldie, &c., (June 17thto 21st,) before Lee crossed the Potomac, putting the aggregate cava0,000 men. On June 10th it numbered in the Lee's Strength and Losses at Gettysburg. 39 return imates made of it at the time of the battle, by Lee, or Longstreet, or Ewell, or by citizens, we wo, reported as coming from Gen. Longstreet, that Lee had at Gettysburg 67,000 bayonets, or above 70,ve 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 pysburg, Southern Review, April, 1868.) 2. Gen. Lee's papers were burned at the close of the war,the Confederate return, published by Swinton, Gen. Lee could hardly have taken over 60,000 with him. Bates himself. All these go to show that Gen. Lee moved northward with about 60,000 men, and th[2 more...]
John B. Hood (search for this): chapter 5
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, 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) 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 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. N
Milroy (search for this): chapter 5
ee 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 the other data at hand, in regard to the strength of the respective armies, but do not fi
Gregg (search for this): chapter 5
r corps.-- adds to the above the losses of the Confederate cavalry in 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 inaccurat
Doubleday (search for this): chapter 5
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 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 andGen. Doubleday is correct, that some transfer of troops must have taken place between June 10th and July 1st; or that some part of the corps must have been elsewhere on detached duty. --falls into the error of Dr. Bates .in assuming that the Federal reports of strength always included the sick and the teamsters, &c., while the Confederate did not. If Gen. Meade did not mean that his army present for duty numbered 95,000 he woul
James Longstreet (search for this): chapter 5
as estimated at not over 21,000 men. The loss actually was: In Longstreet's corps (see his report in the Southern Magazine, April, 1874), ing 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 ridice Confederate strength is a statement, reported as coming from Gen. Longstreet, that Lee had at Gettysburg 67,000 bayonets, or above 70,000 oMr. 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, and probably did, for this officer, in a letter on the batte of Gettysburg to the New Orleans Republican, dated ivisions each contained four brigades. The remaining division of Longstreet's corps (Pickett's) contained only three brigades, and these wereickett'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
1 2 3 4 5 6