hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
Fitzhugh Lee 536 38 Browse Search
Jefferson Forrest 317 1 Browse Search
T. J. Jackson 297 1 Browse Search
W. T. Sherman 278 0 Browse Search
J. A. Early 261 3 Browse Search
United States (United States) 246 0 Browse Search
R. S. Ewell 227 1 Browse Search
James Longstreet 225 1 Browse Search
Stonewall Jackson 196 0 Browse Search
Winchester, Va. (Virginia, United States) 190 2 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 7. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 43 total hits in 17 results.

1 2
Balaklava (Ukraine) (search for this): chapter 7.57
ettysburg. Allow me first to assure my critic that I have been unfortunate in conveying my meaning if anything I have written seems to imply a slur either on General Daniel or his brave men. My meaning was that for such a charge to be made by a single brigade, unsupported, was proof that somebody blundered --not General Daniel, because it is to be presumed that he acted in obedience to orders. I simply stated the fact that a charge which, to some of Steuarts' regiments, was as fatal as Balaklava was to the Light brigade, was made by that brigade without support, though help was at hand in General Daniel's gallant brigade, which moved up and took our position when we left the Federal works to make the charge. So much for my animus. Now, as to the facts. Colonel Winston questions the statement that Daniel's command remained in the breastworks during and after the charge, and gave no support to Steuart, and says: I know that Daniel's brigade went into the fight on General Steuart
Gettysburg (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 7.57
Colonel Winston's Correction corrected. By Rev. Dr. R. H. Mckim. The February number of these Papers (page 94) contains a communication from Colonel J. R. Winston, calling in question the accuracy of certain statements made by me in my narrative of Steuart's brigade at Gettysburg. Allow me first to assure my critic that I have been unfortunate in conveying my meaning if anything I have written seems to imply a slur either on General Daniel or his brave men. My meaning was that for such a charge to be made by a single brigade, unsupported, was proof that somebody blundered --not General Daniel, because it is to be presumed that he acted in obedience to orders. I simply stated the fact that a charge which, to some of Steuarts' regiments, was as fatal as Balaklava was to the Light brigade, was made by that brigade without support, though help was at hand in General Daniel's gallant brigade, which moved up and took our position when we left the Federal works to make the charge.
Rodes (search for this): chapter 7.57
timate of loss (680) was less than the loss as stated officially by General Johnson's Assistant Adjutant-General, viz: 682. The losses in Daniel's brigade were heavier, but were incurred chiefly in the first day's battle, as may be seen from General Rodes' report (September number, 1876, Historical Society Papers, page 149, compared with ditto, page 172). Rodes' division lost 2,869 in the entire three days battle, of which number 2,500 were lost on the first day. Randolph H. McKim. New York, 680) was less than the loss as stated officially by General Johnson's Assistant Adjutant-General, viz: 682. The losses in Daniel's brigade were heavier, but were incurred chiefly in the first day's battle, as may be seen from General Rodes' report (September number, 1876, Historical Society Papers, page 149, compared with ditto, page 172). Rodes' division lost 2,869 in the entire three days battle, of which number 2,500 were lost on the first day. Randolph H. McKim. New York, May 13th, 1879.
J. R. Winston (search for this): chapter 7.57
Colonel Winston's Correction corrected. By Rev. Dr. R. H. Mckim. The February number of these Papers (page 94) contains a communication from Colonel J. R. Winston, calling in question the accurColonel J. R. Winston, calling in question the accuracy of certain statements made by me in my narrative of Steuart's brigade at Gettysburg. Allow me first to assure my critic that I have been unfortunate in conveying my meaning if anything I have left the Federal works to make the charge. So much for my animus. Now, as to the facts. Colonel Winston questions the statement that Daniel's command remained in the breastworks during and after ne of works which Steuart vacated in order to make the charge. The incident referred to by Colonel Winston must have occurred at some other time. I was not wounded (though struck four times), assiss in the charge, and know whereof I affirm. It was the last charge made, and it is certain Colonel Winston did not pass General Steuart during that charge. I can assure him there was no time for exc
Edward Johnson (search for this): chapter 7.57
friend, I have obtained from the Confederate archives at Washington a copy of the tabulated report of Major R. W. Hunter, Assistant Adjutant-General to Major-General Edward Johnson. This document gives the following table of casualties:  killed.wounded.missing.aggregate. Johnson's staff 112 Stonewall brigade3520887330 JonesJohnson's staff 112 Stonewall brigade3520887330 Jones' brigade5830261421 Steuart's brigade83409190682 Nichol's brigade4330936388 Total2191,2293751,823 It appears, then, that my estimate of loss (680) was less than the loss as stated officially by General Johnson's Assistant Adjutant-General, viz: 682. The losses in Daniel's brigade were heavier, but were incurred chiefly in General Johnson's Assistant Adjutant-General, viz: 682. The losses in Daniel's brigade were heavier, but were incurred chiefly in the first day's battle, as may be seen from General Rodes' report (September number, 1876, Historical Society Papers, page 149, compared with ditto, page 172). Rodes' division lost 2,869 in the entire three days battle, of which number 2,500 were lost on the first day. Randolph H. McKim. New York, May 13th, 187
John W. Daniel (search for this): chapter 7.57
ning if anything I have written seems to imply a slur either on General Daniel or his brave men. My meaning was that for such a charge to be me brigade, unsupported, was proof that somebody blundered --not General Daniel, because it is to be presumed that he acted in obedience to ordade by that brigade without support, though help was at hand in General Daniel's gallant brigade, which moved up and took our position when weNow, as to the facts. Colonel Winston questions the statement that Daniel's command remained in the breastworks during and after the charge, and gave no support to Steuart, and says: I know that Daniel's brigade went into the fight on General Steuart's line. As we went in I passed him. This in no way disproves my assertion that during the charge Daniel held the Federal line of works which Steuart vacated in order to maeral Johnson's Assistant Adjutant-General, viz: 682. The losses in Daniel's brigade were heavier, but were incurred chiefly in the first day'
Steuarts (search for this): chapter 7.57
my narrative of Steuart's brigade at Gettysburg. Allow me first to assure my critic that I have been unfortunate in conveying my meaning if anything I have written seems to imply a slur either on General Daniel or his brave men. My meaning was that for such a charge to be made by a single brigade, unsupported, was proof that somebody blundered --not General Daniel, because it is to be presumed that he acted in obedience to orders. I simply stated the fact that a charge which, to some of Steuarts' regiments, was as fatal as Balaklava was to the Light brigade, was made by that brigade without support, though help was at hand in General Daniel's gallant brigade, which moved up and took our position when we left the Federal works to make the charge. So much for my animus. Now, as to the facts. Colonel Winston questions the statement that Daniel's command remained in the breastworks during and after the charge, and gave no support to Steuart, and says: I know that Daniel's brigade w
George H. Steuart (search for this): chapter 7.57
tain statements made by me in my narrative of Steuart's brigade at Gettysburg. Allow me first to and after the charge, and gave no support to Steuart, and says: I know that Daniel's brigade went into the fight on General Steuart's line. As we went in I passed General Steuart, and as I came ouGeneral Steuart, and as I came out (badly wounded) I again passed him. This in no way disproves my assertion that during the charge Daniel held the Federal line of works which Steuart vacated in order to make the charge. The incit is certain Colonel Winston did not pass General Steuart during that charge. I can assure him therCarolina regiments, which constituted part of Steuart's brigade. They will substantiate the only point at issue, viz: that Steuart's men made that charge without aid from any quarter. The accuracy of my estimate of the loss in Steuart's brigade is also called in question. I stated the loss a brigade3520887330 Jones' brigade5830261421 Steuart's brigade83409190682 Nichol's brigade4330936
R. H. McKim (search for this): chapter 7.57
Colonel Winston's Correction corrected. By Rev. Dr. R. H. Mckim. The February number of these Papers (page 94) contains a communication from Colonel J. R. Winston, calling in question the accuracy of certain statements made by me in my narrative of Steuart's brigade at Gettysburg. Allow me first to assure my critic that I have been unfortunate in conveying my meaning if anything I have written seems to imply a slur either on General Daniel or his brave men. My meaning was that for such a charge to be made by a single brigade, unsupported, was proof that somebody blundered --not General Daniel, because it is to be presumed that he acted in obedience to orders. I simply stated the fact that a charge which, to some of Steuarts' regiments, was as fatal as Balaklava was to the Light brigade, was made by that brigade without support, though help was at hand in General Daniel's gallant brigade, which moved up and took our position when we left the Federal works to make the charge.
Catesby Jones (search for this): chapter 7.57
led in question. I stated the loss at 680, killed, wounded and missing; my critic, relying on the consolidated reports, says it was 301. Now, through the kindness of a friend, I have obtained from the Confederate archives at Washington a copy of the tabulated report of Major R. W. Hunter, Assistant Adjutant-General to Major-General Edward Johnson. This document gives the following table of casualties:  killed.wounded.missing.aggregate. Johnson's staff 112 Stonewall brigade3520887330 Jones' brigade5830261421 Steuart's brigade83409190682 Nichol's brigade4330936388 Total2191,2293751,823 It appears, then, that my estimate of loss (680) was less than the loss as stated officially by General Johnson's Assistant Adjutant-General, viz: 682. The losses in Daniel's brigade were heavier, but were incurred chiefly in the first day's battle, as may be seen from General Rodes' report (September number, 1876, Historical Society Papers, page 149, compared with ditto, page 172). Rode
1 2