hide Matching Documents

The documents where this entity occurs most often are shown below. Click on a document to open it.

Document Max. Freq Min. Freq
Frederick H. Dyer, Compendium of the War of the Rebellion: Regimental Histories 520 520 Browse Search
William F. Fox, Lt. Col. U. S. V., Regimental Losses in the American Civil War, 1861-1865: A Treatise on the extent and nature of the mortuary losses in the Union regiments, with full and exhaustive statistics compiled from the official records on file in the state military bureaus and at Washington 182 182 Browse Search
Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History (ed. Benson Lossing) 112 112 Browse Search
George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent, Vol. 6, 10th edition. 64 64 Browse Search
George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent, Vol. 8 38 38 Browse Search
Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Massachusetts in the Army and Navy during the war of 1861-1865, vol. 1, Mass. officers and men who died. 36 36 Browse Search
John Beatty, The Citizen-Soldier; or, Memoirs of a Volunteer 31 31 Browse Search
George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent, Vol. 5, 13th edition. 28 28 Browse Search
Brigadier-General Ellison Capers, Confederate Military History, a library of Confederate States Military History: Volume 5, South Carolina (ed. Clement Anselm Evans) 27 27 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 22. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 23 23 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Browsing named entities in Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). You can also browse the collection for December or search for December in all documents.

Your search returned 7 results in 4 document sections:

Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Leading Confederates on the battle of Gettysburg. (search)
, as it might have done then, injure the cause for which we fought the battle. The request that I furnish this history to the Times comes opportunely, for the appeal just made through the press by a distinguished foreigner for all information that will develope the causes of the failure of that campaign has provoked anew its partisan and desultory discussion, and renders a plain and logical recital of the facts both timely and important. After the defeat of Burnside at Fredericksburg in December, it was believed that active operations were over for the winter, and I was sent with two divisions of my corps to the eastern shore of Virginia, where I could find food for my men during the winter, and send supplies to the Army of Northern Virginia. I spent several months in this department, keeping the enemy close within his fortifications, and foraging with little trouble and great success. On May 1st I received orders to report to General Lee, at Fredericksburg. General Hooker had
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), A review of the First two days operations at Gettysburg and a reply to General Longstreet by General Fitz. Lee. (search)
r further work-something over 10,000 men. The four divisions engaged upon the Confederate side in the battle amounted to about 22,000. The loss after the repulse of the enemy, in Early's division, amounted to 586, (Early's review of Gettysburg, December number of Southern iHistorical Society Papers, 1877, page 257,) leaving him still about 4,500 fighting men. Heth says, (see his paper in Philadelphia Times, September 22d, 1877,) he went into that fight with 7,000 muskets, and lost 2,700 men kilaffirming that a little more marching, perhaps a little more fighting, would have gained for us the possession of the heights on the evening of the 1st of July. On the other hand, General Early, in a masterly review of those operations in the December number Southern Historical Society Papers, 1877, gives some strong reasons, which at the time prevented a further advance, made more convincing by the fact of its being well known that he desired to move on after the retreating Federals. I can
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Letter from President Davis-reply to Mr. Hunter. (search)
troversy, at least in our pages.] Mississippi City, March 27th, 1878. Rev. J. W. Jones, D. D., Secretary of Southern Historical Society: Dear sir: In the December number of your magazine was published an article by Hon. R. M. T. Hunter, purporting to be a reply to my answer to his previous article published in a Northern pt of your letter of the 4th instant, of Mr. Hunter's interview with you, in the interests of peace, referred to in the letter published over his signature in the December number of the Southern Historical Society Papers, which I have just read for the first time; nor do I remember to have ever heard a word from you that could be rarch 21st, 1878. Rev. J. William Jones, Sec. S. H. Society, Richmond, Va.: Dear sir: I have quite recently seen in the Southern Historical Society Papers, for December last, a communication from the Hon. R. M. T. Hunter, of Virginia, purporting to be a rejoinder to a letter of the Hon. Jefferson Davis, appearing in the November
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Decision of the Supreme Court of Tennessee that the Confederacy was de jure as well as de facto-opinion of Judge Turney. (search)
onstituents of the aggregate composing the State. A State having a right may employ all the means necessary to the enjoyment of that right, and it is a gross solecism to say that the State may lawfully have a thing, but may not lawfully engage its citizens to createthat thing, or that its citizens may not voluntarily do so. There is no conflict of opinion between this holding and the case of Puryear, adm'r, v. McGavock et als., manuscript opinion by Judge Deaderick, as the transaction in that case was in April, 1861, before action was taken by the State in the matter of separation. Reverse the judgment. Note.-The opinion above was delivered at Nashville, December term, 1872, and introduced here as conclusive of the numerous cases, still pending in the courts of the State, involving the principles it determines. It was recently reaffirmed, without a written opinion, in the case of The Union Bank of Tennessee v. Alexander Pattison, at Jackson, September term, 1876.-J. C. M.