Named Entity Results, Walter H. Taylor

1877, of the Southern Historical Society Papers), Colonel Walter H. Taylor, in speaking of the fight on the 3d of July, saysry gallantly. After such a declaration, strange to say, Col. Taylor, in his second paper (September No., 1877, of the Southe line was neither drooping nor did it move in echelon. Colonel Taylor seems not to have been aware, or to have forgotten thew one mile and a quarter from the enemy's line. From Colonel Taylor's position, then, to the left, the apparent drooping othe result of his right-oblique view of the charge. Colonel Taylor is again at fault when he says the charge was made dowlker, of the Third corps. By command of General Lee. W. H. Taylor, Assistant-Adjutant General. To Colonel J. B. Walton. ssertions. The first letter that I offer is from Colonel W. H. Taylor, of General Lee's staff. It is as follows: Norfoln the daily walks of life. Yours, very respectfully, W. H. Taylor. To General Longstreet. The next letter is from Co

tember, 1877, General Long gives various details which demonstrate that General Lee expected Longstreet to attack early in the morning of the 2nd; that, at 10 o'clock, General Lee's impatience became so urgent that he proceeded in person to hasten the movements of Longstreet; that he was met by the welcome tidings that Longstreet's troops were in motion; and that, after further annoying delays, at 1 o'clock P. M. General Lee's impatience again urged him to go in quest of Longstreet. Col. Walter H. Taylor, of General Lee's staff, whose letter General Longstreet gives to show that he did not hear the order for an early attack, says, in his article published in the Southern Historical Society Papers for September, 1877, it is generally conceded that General Longstreet on this occasion was fairly chargeable with tardiness; that he had been urged the day before by General Lee to hasten his march; and, that, on the morning of the 2nd, General Lee was chafed by the non-appearance of the tro

Remarks on the numerical strength of both armies at Gettysburg Comte de Paris. [We publish with great pleasure the following paper from our distinguished friend, and only regret that a clear, conclusive note from Colonel Walter H. Taylor, pointing out the errors which the Count still holds (in spite of the fair spirit in which he writes), is crowded into our next number.] The returns of both armies generally gave three figures for each body of troops, which figures it is essential not to mistake the one with the other for the same army, nor to compare the one with a different one in the opposite armies. These figures showed the number of officers and soldies: 1st, on the rolls; 2d, present; 3d, present for duty. The first category contained every man belonging to the regiment, either present or absent on leave, sick or healthy, or without leave. It happened in both armies, at certain times, that the absentees numbered more than one-third of the whole force. The second cate

Editorial paragraphs. Our Contributors have placed us under many obligations for the valuable papers they have furnished us, and we beg that they will have patience if their articles do not appear promptly. We have on hand a number of papers, reports, &c., which we are anxious to publish at the earliest possible moment, but we are unable to crowd into our pages more than they will hold. On page 137 (March No.) the types make General Taylor speak of the fame of Dubois, when he wrote Louvois, who was, at the time alluded to, the War Minister of Louis the Fourteenth. Our General agent in the West, General George D. Johnston, continues to be most successful in his canvass, and to meet a cordial reception wherever he goes in Tennessee. In Nashville, Clarksville, and Jackson he has secured more than 350 subscribers. He is just beginning the canvass of Memphis. We again commend him as a gallant soldier and an accomplished gentleman every way worthy of confidence and est

Numerical strength of the armies at Gettysburg. by Colonel Walter H. Taylor, A. A. G., A. N. V. [The following explanation and correction of his former article was sent by Colonel Taylor simultaneously to the Philadelphia Times and to us. We exceedingly regret that its publication in our Papers has been unavoidably delayed until now:] As my account of the battle of Gettysburg was first given to the public in your columns, I respectfully ask space therein sufficient to make the following Colonel Taylor simultaneously to the Philadelphia Times and to us. We exceedingly regret that its publication in our Papers has been unavoidably delayed until now:] As my account of the battle of Gettysburg was first given to the public in your columns, I respectfully ask space therein sufficient to make the following explanation and correction of the statement of the strength of the Confederate Army then made in that campaign: I would premise with the mention of the fact that two kinds of returns of the strength of the army were required to be made to the Department during the war — the one a field return, made twice a month (on the 10th and 20th), and the other a monthly return, made on the last day of each month. In the field returns there was a column for the officers present for duty, and one for e