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
George H. Thomas 1,422 6 Browse Search
William T. Sherman 1,342 2 Browse Search
John B. Hood 1,058 0 Browse Search
U. S. Grant 610 4 Browse Search
Missouri (Missouri, United States) 480 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 412 0 Browse Search
Edgefield (Tennessee, United States) 390 4 Browse Search
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) 242 0 Browse Search
Columbia, Tenn. (Tennessee, United States) 234 4 Browse Search
Frederick Dent Grant 229 1 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of John M. Schofield, Forty-six years in the Army. Search the whole document.

Found 420 total hits in 95 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...
Gettysburg (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 6
and disarming the loyal, and that the latter will all be killed or driven out of the State unless there shall be a change. In particular, no loyal man who has been disarmed is named, but the affidavits show, by name, forty-two persons as disloyal who have been armed. They are as follows: [Names omitted.] A majority of these are shown to have been in the rebel service. I believe it could be shown that the government here has deliberately armed more than ten times as many captured at Gettysburg, to say nothing of similar operations in East Tennessee. These papers contain altogether thirty-one manuscript pages, and one newspaper in extenso; and yet I do not find it anywhere charged in them that any loyal man has been harmed by reason of being disarmed, or that any disloyal one has harmed anybody by reason of being armed by the Federal or State government. Of course I have not had time to carefully examine all; but I have had most of them examined and briefed by others, and the
Oklahoma (Oklahoma, United States) (search for this): chapter 6
nced by the radicals as persecution of loyal men. When Genl. Curtis relinquished command he had in Missouri and Kansas 43,000 men; Genl. Schofield retained in these States only 23,000. Of the remaining 20,000, he sent some reinforcements to Genl. Rosecrans and a large force to Genl. Grant, to assist in the capture of Vicksburg; and with the remainder and a force equivalent to the one sent to Genl. Grant, returned by him after the fall of Vicksburg, he has reclaimed all Arkansas and the Indian Territory. The radicals denounce Genl. Schofield because of his relations to the State government. It is true that those relations have been most cordial, but it is not true that his policy has been controlled or materially influenced by Gov. Gamble. Gov. Gamble has not sought to exercise any such control. He, without hesitation, placed all the militia in active service under Genl. S.'s command, and yielded to him the control of all military operations. As an example to illustrate the truth
Buchanan (Missouri, United States) (search for this): chapter 6
armed by the Federal or State government. Of course I have not had time to carefully examine all; but I have had most of them examined and briefed by others, and the result is as stated. The remarkable fact that the actual evil is yet only anticipated—inferred—induces me to suppose I understand the case. But I do not state my impression, because I might be mistaken, and because your duty and mine is plain in any event. The locality of nearly all this seems to be St. Joseph and Buchanan County. I wish you to give special attention to this region, particularly on Election day. Prevent violence, from whatever quarter, and see that the soldiers themselves do no wrong. Yours truly, A. Lincoln. Hdqrs., Dept. Of the Missouri, St. Louis, Nov. 9th, 1863. Mr. President: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your confidential letter dated Oct. 28th, and containing the names of men enlisted in the militia of northwest Missouri who are said to have been disloyal. On
St. Joseph, Mo. (Missouri, United States) (search for this): chapter 6
t Union families from Platt and Union counties. After full inquiry from Col. Guitar, Genl. Ewing, and Col. Williams at St. Joseph, have replied to the President, informing him the report is false, and a base attempt of my enemies to influence his ac sending additional forces to the front. With the above letter to the President I inclosed the following: St. Joseph, Mo., Oct. 21st, 1863. General: It is with very great pleasure that I can inform you of the satisfactory condition ofthe writer, is a letter of eight closely written foolscap pages. The other two are written by a different person at St. Joseph, Mo., and of the date, respectively, October 12th and 13th, and each inclosing a large number of affidavits. The genermight be mistaken, and because your duty and mine is plain in any event. The locality of nearly all this seems to be St. Joseph and Buchanan County. I wish you to give special attention to this region, particularly on Election day. Prevent violen
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) (search for this): chapter 6
be killed or driven out of the State unless there shall be a change. In particular, no loyal man who has been disarmed is named, but the affidavits show, by name, forty-two persons as disloyal who have been armed. They are as follows: [Names omitted.] A majority of these are shown to have been in the rebel service. I believe it could be shown that the government here has deliberately armed more than ten times as many captured at Gettysburg, to say nothing of similar operations in East Tennessee. These papers contain altogether thirty-one manuscript pages, and one newspaper in extenso; and yet I do not find it anywhere charged in them that any loyal man has been harmed by reason of being disarmed, or that any disloyal one has harmed anybody by reason of being armed by the Federal or State government. Of course I have not had time to carefully examine all; but I have had most of them examined and briefed by others, and the result is as stated. The remarkable fact that the ac
Samuel R. Curtis (search for this): chapter 6
y the radicals as persecution of loyal men. When Genl. Curtis relinquished command he had in Missouri and Kans and Col. Broadhead that free papers given under Genl. Curtis were to be held valid, even though wrongfully gite as prevalent under Fremont, Hunter, Halleck, and Curtis as under Schofield. If the former had greater fohen it had not been placed under the command of General Curtis. That, I believe, is true; but you do not pomen or the Union cause. You charge that upon General Curtis being superseded by General Schofield, Franklin, as stated, constituted a sort of system which General Curtis found in full operation when he took command ofto exist in greater extent than it did. When General Curtis took command of the department, Mr. Dick, againa trial. In this view, and not to ban or brand General Curtis, or to give a victory to any party, I made the ction in Kansas was given the man of its choice—General Curtis; Missouri was placed alone under General Rosecr
J. B. Sanborn (search for this): chapter 6
h a certain matter here before adding to the difficulties of it. Meantime supply me with the particulars of Maj.-Genl. Blunt's case. I replied: I will forward the papers in Genl. Blunt's case, and defer action until I know your pleasure regarding it. I desire, if possible, to diminish and not increase your difficulties. This is one reason why I informed Genl. Halleck what I thought it necessary to do. Have since received a despatch from Genl. Halleck saying that he had ordered Brig.-Genl. J. B. Sanborn from Vicksburg to report to me for duty. Have received a letter from Atty.-Genl. Bates, dated Sept. 29, saying I need have no fear of the result of the efforts of the radical delegation. On Sept. 30 I received a despatch from the President transmitting the false report from Leavenworth that Col. Moss, of the militia, was driving out Union families from Platt and Union counties. After full inquiry from Col. Guitar, Genl. Ewing, and Col. Williams at St. Joseph, have replied to
John M. Schofield (search for this): chapter 6
wise, been enlisted in colored regiments, Genl. Schofield has invariably held that they have been m the service. It cannot be denied that Genl. Schofield's whole influence has been in favor of em present charcoal faction, who now war on Genl. Schofield, are not the men who sustained the governremont, Hunter, Halleck, and Curtis as under Schofield. If the former had greater force opposed ld. The first specific charge against General Schofield is that the enrolled militia was placed rts to do it. The charge is made that General Schofield, on purpose to protect the Lawrence murdg, I therefore approve what I understand General Schofield did in that respect. The charges thatlections, and have, as you see, directed General Schofield accordingly. I do not feel justified to3. （Private and confidential.) General John M. Schofield: There have recently reached the War I am very respectfully your obt. servt., J. M. Schofield, Maj.-Genl. To the President. I had a[17 more...]
J. M. Schofield (search for this): chapter 6
may rest assured will never fail you in any emergency. Yours truly, Willard P. Hall. Major-Genl. Schofield, etc. The following was written by me, November 1, 1863, to Mr. James L. Thomas of S on that question. Mr. Lincoln promptly dismissed the subject with the words: I believe you, Schofield; those fellows have been lying to me again. Mr. Lincoln undoubtedly referred here to a prevccessor. Upon being asked whom he wanted for that command, Grant replied: Either McPherson or Schofield. Among the changes then known in Washington to be in the near future was Grant's elevation ture, whether in the Senate or elsewhere. Mr. Lincoln replied in his characteristic way: Why, Schofield, that cuts the knot, don't it? Tell Halleck to come over here, and we will fix it right away.d Corps, and called merely to pay my respects. The President greeted me with the words: Well, Schofield, I have n't heard anything against you for a year. Apparently, the great trouble to him with
Banks (search for this): chapter 6
I shall endeavor to ascertain better than I now know what is its exact value. Let me say now, however, that your proposal to substitute national forces for the enrolled militia implies that in your judgment the latter is doing something which needs to be done, and if so, the proposition to throw that force away, and supply its place by bringing other forces from the field, where they are urgently needed, seems to me very extraordinary. Whence shall they come? Shall they be withdrawn from Banks, or Grant, or Steele, or Rosecrans? Few things have been so grateful to my anxious feelings as when, in June last, the local force in Missouri aided General Schofield to so promptly send a large general force to the relief of General Grant, then investing Vicksburg and menaced from without by General Johnston. Was this all wrong? Should the enrolled militia then have been broken up, and General Herron kept from Grant to police Missouri? So far from finding cause to object, I confess to
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...