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

Your search returned 12 results in 5 document sections:

Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Leading Confederates on the battle of Gettysburg. (search)
f fresh troops — the sturdy regular blow that tells a soldier instantly that he has encountered reserves or reinforcements. We received no support at all, and there was no evidence of co-operation on any side. To urge my men forward under these circumstances would have been madness, and I withdrew them in good order to the peach orchard that we had taken from the Federals early in the afternoon. It may be mentioned here as illustrative of the dauntless spirit of these men, that when General Humphreys (of Mississippi) was ordered to withdraw his troops from the charge, he thought there was some mistake, and retired to a captured battery near the swale between the tw6 ridges, where he halted, and when ordered to retire to the new line a second time, he did so under protest. The troops engaged with me in the fight of the 2d were mostly Georgians, as follows: The four Georgia brigades of Generals Benning, Anderson, Wofford and Semmes, General Kershaw's South Carolina brigade, Genera
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)
ederal force is overestimated. Their total of all arms was about 90,000. General Humphreys puts, in a letter to me, the Federal infantry at 70,000, inclusive of 5,0brigades were left at Emmettsburg to hold the pass towards Fairfield, and General Humphreys, with two brigades of his division, reached the field at 1 o'clock the nes division of that corps did not reach the field until towards mi'dnight-(General Humphreys, in a letter to me). It will be noticed, however, that General Hancock saccupied for about three quarters of a mile beyond which point two brigades of Humphreys' division of the Third corps were massed, and on their left two brigades of Bdivision of same corps, and constituting all of that corps then up-Birney and Humphreys having each left a brigade at Emmettsburg. General Humphreys, in a private lGeneral Humphreys, in a private letter to me, says Birney reached Gettysburg about sunset the first day, leaving one brigade at Emmettsburg — with Birney there were probably 4,500, and at Emme
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Numerical strength of the armies at Gettysburg. (search)
al amount of the column headed effective total --viz., 68,352-as representing what is generally understood by that term, and under the impression that the extensions under that column embraced the officers and men present for duty. I was the more naturally led into this error, as Mr. Swinton, whose figures I had before me, had done precisely the same thing. Lieutenant-General Early having directed my attention, on the 9th instant, to the discrepancy between certain figures given by General Humphreys from the same return to the Comte de Paris and mny own, and having expressed his apprehension that I took the figures from the column headed effective total, inasmuch as, excluding the cavalry, the strength of the army as taken from the field return of the 20th May, 1863, was greater than that taken from the monthly report of the 31st May, 1863, I began to suspect that the officers were not included in the estimate given. I at once made application to the War Department for the inform
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Colonel Taylor's reply to the Count of Paris. (search)
,000 or 105,000, or compare our 74,000 to their 115,000; but do not compare our maximum 74,000 with their minimum 95,000. Yours, truly, W. H. Taylor. P. S. In an article contributed to the Weekly Times of Philadelphia, March 10th, General Humphreys, U. S. A., rather confirms my estimate of the strength of the Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg. According to his statement, the return of that army on the 30th June, 1863, showed present for duty, officers and enlisted men, 99,475. He fuard's brigade went to the main trains, and three joined the First Corps. His regiments are stated on good authority to have been about five hundred each-much larger than the average of the Army of the Potomac. The same estimate is made by General Humphreys of the strength of Lockwood's two regiments. If we add to the strength of the Army of the Potomac, as shown by the return of the 30th of June, viz., 99,475, the seven regiments, numbering five hundred each, that joined it subsequently, t
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), General Longstreet's Second paper on Gettysburg. (search)
eneral Wilcox, their work was not as effective as it should have been. In this connection it may be noted that the Federal line in front of these troops was not broken so much by direct assault as by crushing in the lines on their left. General Humphreys was forced to change front partially two or three times to meet threatened flank movements against him, and he was in that way drawn off from immediate connection with his right. The skillful handling of these troops, commanded by General General A. A. Humphreys, was noted at the time, and has been particularly noted since by General Humphries, of Mississippi. At this late day the official relations of General Lee and myself are brought into question. He is credited with having used uncomely remarks concerning me, in the presence of a number of subordinate officers, just on the eve of battle. It is hardly possible that any one acquainted with General Lee's exalted character will accept such statements as true. It is hardly possible