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
R. E. Lee 226 0 Browse Search
North Carolina (North Carolina, United States) 214 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 186 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 181 5 Browse Search
U. S. Grant 163 1 Browse Search
Robert E. Lee 106 10 Browse Search
S. B. Buckner 102 2 Browse Search
George B. McClellan 97 1 Browse Search
Longstreet 95 47 Browse Search
George E. Pickett 88 2 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 24. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 148 total hits in 38 results.

1 2 3 4
1862 AD (search for this): chapter 1.5
rtial and unbiased foreign student of history concerning the events of the war between the States, and especially as to his estimate of the leaders on the Southern side. This review, however, apppears to me to have been suggested by some one nearer home; and, as I read between the lines, I fancy that I hear the partisan here prompting the reviewer over there. Who on the other side of the Atlantic could claim to be so well informed of public sentiment in Virginia during the eventful years of 1862 and 1863 as to be able to assert that controversy raged high in Richmond between the followers of Lee and Johnston as to their relative merit, which is a great exaggeration, or to say that Longstreet was distinctly of opinion that General Johnston, as a soldier, was General Lee's superior? Where is the authority for this latter assertion? General Longstreet had served under General Johnston up to the battle of Seven Pines, and after that under General Lee; he had been in position to form hi
1st (search for this): chapter 1.5
That General Lee urged that the march of my troops should be hastened, and was chafed at their non-appearance. Not one word did he utter to me of their march until he gave his orders at 11 o'clock for the move to his right. Orders for the troops to hasten their march of the first were sent without even a suggestion from him, but upon his announcement that he intended to fight the next day, if the enemy was there. That he was excited and off his balance was evident on the afternoon of the first, and he labored under that oppression until enough blood was shed to appease him. How terribly sanguinary this makes General Lee appear! Is it really the utterance of General Longstreet? Then he has greatly changed in his sentiment towards General Lee since I knew him during the war. What a groundless, monstrous charge this is! Think of it, all ye gallant survivors of the Army of Northern Virginia, your old commander depicted to the world as an insatiate, cruel and blood-thirsty monster!
1863 AD (search for this): chapter 1.5
e of the Atlantic could claim to be so well informed of public sentiment in Virginia during the eventful years of 1862 and 1863 as to be able to assert that controversy raged high in Richmond between the followers of Lee and Johnston as to their reladon Telegraph. Read what General Longstreet wrote to General Lee on the eve of his departure for Tennessee in the fall of 1863. Under date of September 12th he wrote: If I did not think our move a necessary one, my regrets at leaving you would bth many statements alleged to have been made by General Longstreet touching the invasion of Pennsylvania by General Lee in 1863. General Longstreet could not claim to have entertained the views and sentiments now attributed to him when he penned the tterer and time-server. When he discussed with General Lee the line of action most advisable to be pursued in the fall of 1863, although rather more disposed to favor the reinforcement of our army in the West for aggressive movements, while the Army
2nd (search for this): chapter 1.5
r right. It is useless to discuss here how different the result might have been had General Longstreet moved his two divisions to the front at dawn of day on the 2d. The only question I propose to consider now is, at what hour did the troops of General Longstreet reach General Lee? For, as will be shown later, there appears tadiction in General Longstreet's own statements about this. In his book, page 362, General Longstreet says: The stars were shining brightly on the morning of the 2d, when I reported at General Lee's headquarters and asked for orders. After a time Generals McLaws and Hood, with their staffs, rode up, and at sunrise their comman for me to believe that he ever entertained an idea that I was to attack at that hour. My two divisions, nor myself, did not reach General Lee until 8 A. M. on the 2nd, and if he had intended to attack at sunrise he surely would have expressed some surprise or made some allusion to his orders. The point here made by General Longs
April, 1875 AD (search for this): chapter 1.5
75 when he wrote the letter from which I have quoted, he claims that neither he, nor his divisions reached General Lee until 8 o'clock A. M. In his book, published twenty years later, he claims that he reported at General Lee's headquarters before day, the stars were shining brightly, and that his two divisions reached the front at sunrise, say at 4:35 A. M. The preponderance of contemporaneous evidences goes to prove that General Longstreet accurately described the facts in his letter of April, 1875; the star-light scene, with which chapter XXVII of his book opens is too finely drawn for Old Pete, (rather early you know), and its accuracy is not visible to the naked eye. The war record of General Longstreet was a brilliant one. That he should have made mistakes was but natural and inevitable; but these did not serve to make his case an exception; and such was the story of his heroic achievements, they could not mar its brilliancy. It is much to be regretted that in the attempt
June 14th, 1896 AD (search for this): chapter 1.5
Lee and Longstreet. [from the Richmond times, June 14, 1896.] Editor of the Times: Sir,—I have read the review of General Longstreet's book, From Manassas to Appomattox, by the London Daily Telegraph, with much interest. We naturally feel anxious about the conclusions of the impartial and unbiased foreign student of history concerning the events of the war between the States, and especially as to his estimate of the leaders on the Southern side. This review, however, apppears to me to have been suggested by some one nearer home; and, as I read between the lines, I fancy that I hear the partisan here prompting the reviewer over there. Who on the other side of the Atlantic could claim to be so well informed of public sentiment in Virginia during the eventful years of 1862 and 1863 as to be able to assert that controversy raged high in Richmond between the followers of Lee and Johnston as to their relative merit, which is a great exaggeration, or to say that Longstreet w
May 31st, 1875 AD (search for this): chapter 1.5
? I have claimed, and still contend, that General Longstreet was fairly chargeable with tardiness on that occasion. He was fully aware of the importance of joining General Lee at the earliest possible moment. In a letter to me under date of May 31, 1875, he wrote: An order was given, as soon as the fight of the first day was over, for General Ewell to attack, or rather prepare to attack, at daylight in his front, but was almost immediately changed so as to allow time for me to reach the fieldance to General Lee for the presence of his troops at the front, and he failed to meet the occasion and have his command available for the very co-operation with General Ewell by an early attack by our right, of which he wrote in his letter of May 31, 1875. In other words, had he placed his troops at General Lee's disposal at the proper time, it was unquestionably the purpose of the latter to have ordered an attack at sunrise or soon thereafter. His troops not being in position, of course th
September 2nd, 1863 AD (search for this): chapter 1.5
1863, without branding himself as a disingenuous flatterer and time-server. When he discussed with General Lee the line of action most advisable to be pursued in the fall of 1863, although rather more disposed to favor the reinforcement of our army in the West for aggressive movements, while the Army of Northern Virginia should take the defensive, nevertheless, he went so far as to suggest another invasion by General Lee of the enemy's country. In a letter to General Lee, under date September 2, 1863, he wrote, I do not know that we can reasonably hope to accomplish much here by offensive operations unless you are strong enough to cross the Potomac. With such decided views as he is said to entertain now concerning the Gettysburg campaign, it is impossible to understand the suggestion made so soon thereafter as to a repetition of the invasion of the country beyond the Potomac. In speaking of General Longstreet's operations about Knoxville in November, 1863, the London Telegraph
1 2 3 4