Your search returned 684 results in 259 document sections:

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 1. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), The treatment of prisoners during the war between the States. (search)
sink in my drawers or from receiving the contents of the gun. I find this entry in my diary on June 10, 1864: Attacked with diarrrhoea in the night. Afraid to go near the sink. I cannot say that the sentinels had positive orders to shoot on each occasion, but that they received encouragement to do so, and were relieved of all responsibility for such acts, is certain from the following orders, which were publicly promulgated to the orderlies of barracks by the provost marshal, to wit: May 12, 1864.--Ordered, that no prisoner be out of his barracks after taps. May 13, 1864.--Ordered, any prisoner shouting or making a noise will be shot. It was noticed and discussed among the prisoners, that the shooting was most violent immediately after a Confederate success. I noted some cases that came under my own observation, but by no means a complete list; in fact, the prisoners became so accustomed to the firing from the parapet, that unless it occurred near his side of the prison, a
as no redress or relief to be had until his muleship got ready to move, which was generally after every ounce of his burden had been stripped off and placed on terra firma. When the army was lying in line of battle in such close proximity to the enemy that the ammunition wagons could not safely approach it, two boxes were taken and strapped on a mule, one on each side, to keep his balance true, and thus the troops were supplied when needed. At the terrible battle of Spottsylvania, May 12, 1864, a steady line of pack-mules, loaded with ammunition, filed up the open ravine, opposite the captured salient, for nearly twenty hours, in that way supplying our forces, who were so hotly engaged there. Rations were furnished in the same manner under similar circumstances. But now and then a mule would lie down under his burden, and refuse to budge. Grant says (vol. i. p. 106): I am not aware of ever having used a profane expletive in my life, but I would have the charity to exc
Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, The Passing of the Armies: The Last Campaign of the Armies., Chapter 4: Five Forks. (search)
battle to-day; and the power put in his hands to remove Warren. We could not but sympathize with Sheridan in his present perplexities, and, anxious for Warren, were resolved to do our part to make things go right. The mental attitude of the parties concerned will be understood by reference to the despatches of the Hon. Charles A. Dana to the War Office during the previous summer. They were doubtless known to Sheridan, as to the higher officers of the Fifth Corps. Those of May 9th and 12th, 1864, referring to Warren's movements as slow and piecemeal, so as to fail of the desired effect in the plans of the general commanding the army. He accuses him of not handling his corps in a mass, and even implies a positive disobedience of orders on his part in attacking with a division when ordered by Grant to attack with his whole corps. (Serial No. 67, pp. 64, 68.) Still the Fifth Corps got in enough to lose ten thousand six hundred and eighty-six men in the first two fights. (Dana's
Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant, Hancock's assault-losses of the Confederates- promotions recommended-discomfiture of the enemy-ewell's attack-reducing the artillery (search)
hteen inches in diameter, was cut entirely down by musket balls. All the trees between the lines were very much cut to pieces by artillery and musketry. It was three o'clock next morning before the fighting ceased. Some of our troops had then been twenty hours under fire. In this engagement we did not lose a single organization, not even a company. The enemy lost one division with its commander, one brigade and one regiment, with heavy losses elsewhere. Headquarters, Armies U. S. May 12, 1864, 6.30 P. M. Major-General Halleck, Washington, D. C. The eighth day of the battle closes, leaving between three and four thousand prisoners in our hands for the day's work, including two general officers, and over thirty pieces of artillery. The enemy are obstinate, and seem to have found the last ditch. We have lost no organizations, not even that of a company, whilst we have destroyed and captured one division (Johnson's), one brigade (Doles'), and one regiment entire from the enem
d their position, already strong by nature, into an impregnable intrenched camp. Grant assaulted their works on the tenth, fiercely, but unsuccessfully. There followed one day of inactivity, during which Grant wrote his report, only claiming that after six days of hard fighting and heavy losses the result up to this time is much in our favor ; but expressing, in the phrase which immediately became celebrated, his firm resolution to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer. On May 12, 1864, Grant ordered a yet more determined attack, in which, with fearful carnage on both sides, the Union forces finally stormed the earthworks which have become known as the bloody angle. But finding that other and more formidable intrenchments still resisted his entrance to the Confederate camp, Grant once more moved by the left flank past his enemy toward Richmond. Lee followed with equal swiftness along the interior lines. Days passed in an intermitting, and about equally matched conte
The Atlanta (Georgia) Campaign: May 1 - September 8, 1864., Part I: General Report. (ed. Maj. George B. Davis, Mr. Leslie J. Perry, Mr. Joseph W. Kirkley), chapter 117 (search)
Ga., and marched about eight miles and bivouacked in about three miles of Buzzard Roost. The next day the regiment moved about two miles to the front, and on the 9th of May the regiment moved in line of battle across an open field under the fire of the enemy, and took position on a hill in a short range of the enemy's artillery and sharpshooters. This position was held until 10 p. m. May 10. 1864, when the regiment was relieved by the Fifty-first Ohio Volunteer Infantry. The next day, May 12, 1864, the regiment marched about fifteen miles to Snake Creek Gap, and on the 13th of May took position, with our brigade as reserve to First Division, on the battle-field of Resaca. The regiment remained in reserve until May 15, when it moved about one mile to the left and took position on the front in the second line of the Third Brigade, on the right of the division. Here the regiment remained under the fire of the enemy, protected by earth-works, until May 16, when the enemy having fled
The Atlanta (Georgia) Campaign: May 1 - September 8, 1864., Part I: General Report. (ed. Maj. George B. Davis, Mr. Leslie J. Perry, Mr. Joseph W. Kirkley), chapter 143 (search)
ard Roost Gap. Company A, of theThirty-fourth Illinois, at the same time carried the hill on the right of the railroad and immediately south of the gap, a gallant act, for which the company and its commander deserve special mention. On our advance to the mouth of the gap the enemy withdrew to his trenches and earthworks beyond, making the capture an easy one. In the advance Private Alexander Gandy, of Company I, was wounded. We lay at the mouth of Buzzard Roost Gap until the morning of May 12, 1864, when we moved to the right toward Snake Creek Gap; reached the mouth of Snake Creek Gap about dark and halted for supper. We marched all night, passed through the gap, and arrived next morning in Sugar Valley. During the afternoon we moved to the front, leaving all knapsacks and baggage in the valley, and did picket duty for the Second Division, which was massed in front of the enemy's intrenched position at Resaca. On the 14th, at the battle of Resaca, the One hundred and twenty-firs
The Atlanta (Georgia) Campaign: May 1 - September 8, 1864., Part I: General Report. (ed. Maj. George B. Davis, Mr. Leslie J. Perry, Mr. Joseph W. Kirkley), chapter 167 (search)
No. 160. Repodis of Lieut. Col. Thomas Doan, one hundred and first Indiana Infantry. headquarters 101ST Indiana Volunteers, Near Atlanta, Ga., August 15, 1864. Sir: I have the honor to report concerning operations of this regiment from May 7, 1864, to August 6, as follows, to wit: May 7, left Ringgold, passing Tunnel Hill, and lay before Rocky Face Mountain until morning of May 12, 1864, when we marched for Resaca by way of Snake Creek Gap. May 13, 14, and 15, participated in operations in Sugar Creek Valley, near Resaca, with loss of 3 men wounded. May 16, engaged in pursuit of enemy, arriving at Kingston May 19. May 23, marched by way of Burnt Hickory, and on June 2, 3, and 4, participated in operations on Pumpkin Vine Creek, near Dallas, with loss of 5 men wounded. June 14, advanced on Kenesaw Mountain, skirmishing with enemy; intrenched ourselves in seven different positions on the enemy's front, the enemy evacuating July 2. Our loss in front of Kenesaw Mountain,
Robert Stiles, Four years under Marse Robert, Chapter 24: fatal mistake of the Confederate military authorities (search)
ntry in our service, and even in Lee's glorious army; but the point is, the promotion lagged and followed afar off-so far that, before the tardy recognition came, men had forgotten the heroic deeds that forced it, and the effect was almost, if not altogether, lost. May I be pardoned for referring to my personal experience in this regard, amongst the bitterest of my life. I was recommended for promotion for conduct at The Salient, that is, The Bloody Angle, of Spottsylvania, of the 12th of May, 1864; and the promotion came, but more than six months later, and then the commission gave me rank, not from the date of the engagement, but from the date of its issue; nor was there upon its face the slightest reference to or connection with the glorious 12th of May. I do not think I was ever so disappointed and indignant. I never saw the commission again; my recollection is that I tore it to tatters. I presume it is, in part at least, to the delay in issuing this commission that I am i
Robert Underwood Johnson, Clarence Clough Buell, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War. Volume 4., Du Pont's attack at Charleston. (search)
of his enemies, and having passed, his fleet was in a place of safety, whence he compelled surrender. Admiral Dahlgren, an officer of great personal intrepidity, long our chief of ordnance, goaded by newspaper attacks, chafed under his inability to do what had been expected from him; but his judgment concurred with that of his predecessor, and he recognized the fact that his force could not take Charleston. The councils of war that he called on the 22d of October, 1863, and on the 12th of May, 1864, advised against the attempt, and it was never made. Since his death, we learn from his biography, written by his most trusted confidante, his very clever and devoted wife, that he addressed a long letter to the Navy Department, justifying his course and vindicating the navy from the unfair attacks made against it. The biographer goes on to say: But the Navy Department seems to have lacked, at the time, the moral courage to assume fearlessly the full responsibility of its action wh
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...