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
Alfred Roman, The military operations of General Beauregard in the war between the states, 1861 to 1865 27 1 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 1. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 23 1 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 14. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 21 1 Browse Search
General James Longstreet, From Manassas to Appomattox 19 1 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 4. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 18 4 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 15. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 14 2 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 13. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 13 1 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 7. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 12 2 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 3. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 12 2 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 11 1 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Browsing named entities in Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 4. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). You can also browse the collection for A. L. Long or search for A. L. Long in all documents.

Your search returned 11 results in 5 document sections:

Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 4. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Causes of the defeat of Gen. Lee's Army at the battle of Gettysburg-opinions of leading Confederate soldiers. (search)
ly are historic, and the arguments based on them are legitimate. I send you also a manuscript copy of a letter from Gen. A. L. Long, who was on Gen. Lee's staff at Gettysburg, received subsequently to the controversy between Longstreet and myself. The facts stated by Gen. Long tend very strongly to sustain my positions. I must here take occasion to declare that I have never had, and do not now have any suspicion of a want of fidelity on the part of Gen. Longstreet to the cause of the Coonfederacy. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, Your obedient servant, J. A. Early. Letter from General A. L. Long. [Copy.] Charlottesville, April 5th, 1876. General J. A. Early: Dear Sir: General Lee and staff arrived o shall follow the above papers with letters from General E. P. Alexander, chief of artillery of Longstreet's corps; General A. L. Long, chief of artillery of Ewell's corps; General Wilcox, of Hill's corps; General Heth, of Hill's corps; and others wh
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 4. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Causes of the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg. (search)
lear in his judgment, and in the execution, either of his own previously determined plans, or the orders of a superior, to whom he was devotedly attached, rarely equalled. Very respectfully and truly, C. M. Wilcox. Letter from General A. L. Long, military Secretary to General R. E. Lee. Charlottesville, Va., April, 1877. Rev. J. Wm. Jones, D. D., Secretary Southern Historical Society: The questions of-- , in relation to the invasion of Pennsylvania and the battle of Gettysb A glance at a correct sketch of the Federal position on the third will sufficiently corroborate this remark, and had Pickett's division been promptly supported when it burst through Mleade's center, a more positive proof would have been given than the features of the country, for his right wing would have been overwhelmed before the left could have disengaged itself from the woods and mountains and come to its relief. Very respectfully, A. L. Long, Military Secretary to General R. E. Lee.
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 4. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Second paper by Colonel Walter H. Taylor, of General Lee's staff. (search)
ir support. The divisions of Hood and McLaws (First corps) were passive spectators of the movement. To one who observed the charge, it appeared that Pettigrew's line was not a continuation of that of Pickett, but that it advanced in echelon. It would seem that there was some confusion in forming the troops, for Captain Louis G. Young, of General Pettigrew's staff, says: On the morning of the third of July, General Pettigrew, commanding Heth's division, was instructed to report to General Long-,street, who directed him to form in the rear of Pickett's division, and support his advance upon Cemetery Hill, which would be commenced as soon as the fire from our artillery should have driven the enemy from his guns and prepared the way for attack. And I presume that it was in consequence of this having been the first plan settled on, that the erroneous report was circulated that Heth's division was assigned the duty of supporting that of Pickett. But the order referred to was coun
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 4. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Leading Confederates on the battle of Gettysburg. (search)
th our division. General — Buford's cavalry was all in line of battle between our position there and the enemy. Our cavalry presented a very handsome front, and, I think, probably checked the advance of the enemy. General Hancock made a great deal of personal effort to get our troops into position, and 1 think his personal appearance there did a great deal towards restoring order. Con. Rep., 377. Buford confronted Hill's right, and had two brigades, containing seven regiments. General Long, in his letter to me, says he was directed by Gen. Lee very soon after the close of the action to reconnoitre the position, and he adds: I found Cemetery Hill occupied by a considerable force — a force strongly posted behind a stone fence near its crest, and the rest on the reverse slope. In my opinion, an attack at that time, with the troops then at hand, would have been hazardous and of very doubtful success. It was not, therefore, a mere question of a little more marching, nor of
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 4. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Supplement to General Early's Review.-reply to General Longstreet. (search)
were given, or of the time when they were given. That is all their testimony amounts to. But General Longstreet omits a very important and significant part of General Long's letter. That letter, a copy of which I have, goes on to say, immediately after the part given by General Longstreet: As my memory now serves me, it was hat such was the case from the instructions that Gen. Lee gave me on the evening of the first and very early on the morning of the second of July. See also General Long's letter to me in the August number of the Southern Historical Society Papers. The letter of Colonel Venable is as follows: University of Virginia, May 11ew of no such order, but neither did they know what order was given, nor when any order was given for the attack. He omits to give a very significant part of General Long's letter, which tends to show that some order must have been given for an attack early on the morning of the 2nd. The question, therefore, rests on an issue o