hide
Named Entity Searches
hide
Matching Documents
The documents where this entity occurs most often are shown below. Click on a document to open it.
Your search returned 775 results in 457 document sections:
The Photographic History of The Civil War: in ten volumes, Thousands of Scenes Photographed 1861-65, with Text by many Special Authorities, Volume 10: The Armies and the Leaders. (ed. Francis Trevelyan Miller), Chapter 6
The Photographic History of The Civil War: in ten volumes, Thousands of Scenes Photographed 1861-65, with Text by many Special Authorities, Volume 10: The Armies and the Leaders. (ed. Francis Trevelyan Miller), Chapter 7 Confederate armies and generals (search)
The Photographic History of The Civil War: in ten volumes, Thousands of Scenes Photographed 1861-65, with Text by many Special Authorities, Volume 10: The Armies and the Leaders. (ed. Francis Trevelyan Miller), Chapter 8
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 2. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Book notices. (search)
Book notices.
The woman in battle--Madame L. J. Velasquez, otherwise known as Lieutenant Harry T. Buford, Confederate States Army.
Richmond, Virginia: Dustin, Gilman & Co. 1876.
We have received this book from the publishers through their agent, Rev. Aaron Jones.
It purports to give the adventures of a woman who disguised herself as a man, fought gallantly in a number of battles, rendered most important services as a Confederate spy, and had various hair-breadth escapes, and most romantic and thrilling adventures.
As to the reality of the existence of such a personage, there can be no reasonable doubt.
The publishers' circular contains certificates from Drs. J. F. Hammond and M. D. L. McCleod, of Atlanta, Georgia; Major G. W. Alexander, of Washington, Georgia; Major John Newman, of New Orleans, and General George Anderson, of Atlanta, all testifying that Madame Velasquez and Lieutenant Harry T. Buford, Confederate States Army, were one and the same individual.
Major Alex
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 2. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Editorial paragraphs. (search)
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 2. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Book notices, (search)
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 3. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Editorial paragraphs. (search)
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 3. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Editorial paragraphs. (search)
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 3. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Maryland troops in the Confederate service. (search)
Maryland troops in the Confederate service. By Lamar Hollyday.
The July (1876) number of the Southern Historical Society papers contains a letter from General J. A. Early on the Relative strength of the armies of Generals Lee and Grant, in which he says that State (Maryland) furnished to the Confederate army only one organized regiment of infantry for one year, and several companies of artillery and cavalry which served through the whole war.
The Confederate roster, also published in the October number of same papers, gives credit for only one regiment of infantry, and makes no mention whatever of either cavalry or artillery,
These statements, coming from such high authority, are calculated to do great injustice to as gallant soldiers of the Confederate army as either shouldered a musket, straddled a horse or rode on a caisson.
Maryland was represented during the whole war, except probably for a few months, by an organized infantry command, which won a name for gallantry a
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 3. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), The Nation on our discussion of the prison question. (search)
The Nation on our discussion of the prison question.
Our readers will remember that we devoted the numbers of our papers for March and April of last year (1876) to a discussion of the Treatment of Prisoners during the War between the States.
We sent copies of the numbers containing this discussion to all of the leading newspapers of the country, and wrote them a private letter enclosing proof-sheets of our summing up, and asking of them such review as they might think proper.
Our Southern papers generally published full and most complimentary notices of the discussion; but the Northern press, so far as we learned, were silent, except a few such ill-natured paragraphs as the one which appeared in the New York Tribune, to the effect that the country wanted peace, and they did not see why we could not let it have the peace after which it longed.
Among other papers to which we sent our articles was The Nation, from which we hoped to have had a review.
It was silent, however, un