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
United States (United States) 24 0 Browse Search
Fort Pickens (Florida, United States) 10 0 Browse Search
Ann Thomas 10 0 Browse Search
Winfield Scott 8 2 Browse Search
John S. Cook 8 0 Browse Search
Butler 8 4 Browse Search
Buchanan 7 7 Browse Search
Bell 7 1 Browse Search
William H. Lyons 7 1 Browse Search
November 18th 7 7 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: November 19, 1862., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 111 total hits in 44 results.

1 2 3 4 5
December 30th (search for this): article 14
sent condition, to make an analysis of the ex-President's long reply, I avail myself of a substitute furnished by an accidental visitor, who has kindly marked the few points which he thinks may require some slight notice at my hands. 1. To account for not having garrisoned sufficiently the Southern forts named against anticipated treason and rebellion, according to my many recommendations, beginning October 29, 1860, repeated the next day, and again more earnestly December 13, 15, 28, and 30, the ex-President says: "There were no available troops within reach." Now, I have nowhere said that either of those forts, even with the reinforcements indicated, would have had a war garrison. Certainly not — My proposition was to put each in a condition, as I expressly said, to guard against a surprise or coup de main (an off-hand attack--one without full preparation.) That these movements of small detachments might easily have been made in November and December, 1860, and some o
November 8th, 1862 AD (search for this): article 14
vy, with officers about him of intelligence and nautical experience, ought to have said plumply that if Vodges was not to land except in the case of an attack upon Fort Pickens, he might as well have remained at Fortress Monroe, as the prohibition placed the fort, so far as he was concerned, at the mercy, (or as the event showed) in the want of enterprise on the part of the rebel commander at Pensacola. Possibly there are other parts of the reply which a superficial reader may think require comment or elucidation; and, indeed, here is another marked for me by my kind visitor: 5. The ex-President has brought together a labyrinth of dates respecting the arrival and departure of rebel commissioners, armistices, &c., with which, as I had no official connection, I may have made an unimportant mistake or two; but as I have not by me the means of recovering the clue to these windings, I shall not attempt to follow them. Winfield Scott. New York, 5th Av. Hotel, Nov. 8, 1862.
November, 1860 AD (search for this): article 14
arnestly December 13, 15, 28, and 30, the ex-President says: "There were no available troops within reach." Now, I have nowhere said that either of those forts, even with the reinforcements indicated, would have had a war garrison. Certainly not — My proposition was to put each in a condition, as I expressly said, to guard against a surprise or coup de main (an off-hand attack--one without full preparation.) That these movements of small detachments might easily have been made in November and December, 1860, and some of them as late as the following month, cannot be doubted. But the ex-President sneers at my "weak device" for saving the forts. He forgets what the gallant Anderson did, with a handful of men, in Fort Sumter, and leaves out of the account what he might have done with a like handful in Fort Moultrie, even without further augmentation of men to divide between the garrisons. Twin forts on the opposite sides of a channel not only give a cross fire on the head of
December, 1860 AD (search for this): article 14
r 13, 15, 28, and 30, the ex-President says: "There were no available troops within reach." Now, I have nowhere said that either of those forts, even with the reinforcements indicated, would have had a war garrison. Certainly not — My proposition was to put each in a condition, as I expressly said, to guard against a surprise or coup de main (an off-hand attack--one without full preparation.) That these movements of small detachments might easily have been made in November and December, 1860, and some of them as late as the following month, cannot be doubted. But the ex-President sneers at my "weak device" for saving the forts. He forgets what the gallant Anderson did, with a handful of men, in Fort Sumter, and leaves out of the account what he might have done with a like handful in Fort Moultrie, even without further augmentation of men to divide between the garrisons. Twin forts on the opposite sides of a channel not only give a cross fire on the head of an attack, but
March 30th, 1861 AD (search for this): article 14
bserve that neither of our venerable and eminent correspondents, in controverting the statements of the other, transcends the limits of candid criticism while dealing with topics at once so delicate and partly of a personal nature. Lieut-Gen. Scott's rejoinder. To the Editors of the National Intelligencer: I regret to find myself in a controversy with the venerable ex-President Buchanan. Recently (October 21) you published my official report to President Lincoln dated March 30, 1861, giving a summary of my then recent connection with our principal Southern forts, which I am sorry to perceive has given offence to the ex-President. That result, purely incidental, did not enter into my purpose in drawing up the paper; but, on reflection, I suppose that, under the circumstances, offence was unavoidable. Let it be remembered, that the new President had a right to demand of me — the immediate commander of the army — how it had happened that the incipient rebels had
1860 AD (search for this): article 14
in time to defeat the robbery. But on this point we may hear ex-Secretary Floyd himself. At Richmond he expressly claimed the honor of defeating all my plans and solicitations respecting the forts, and received his reward; it being there universally admitted that but for that victory over me there could have been no rebellion! 3. Mr. Buchanan complains that I published, without permission, January 13, 1861, my views, ad- dressed to him and the Secretary of War, October 29 and 30. 1860. But that act was caused, as I explained to him at the time, by the misrepresentations of the views in one of the earlier speeches of the same ex-Secretary after his return to Virginia 4. One of my statements, complaining of the joint countermand, sent through the Secretaries of War and Navy, to prevent the landing at Fort Pickens of Capt. Vodges's company, unless the fort should be attacked, is cited by the ex-President to proven, "singular want of memory" on my part; and a note from S
March (search for this): article 14
ion, from Northern repositories to Southern arsenals, so that on the breaking out of the maturing rebellion they might be found without cost, except to the United States, in the most convenient positions for distribution among the insurgents. So, too, with the one hundred and twenty or one hundred and forty pieces of heavy artillery, which the same Secretary ordered from Pittsburg to Ship Island, in Lake Borgne, and Galveston, Texas, for forts not yet erected! Accidently learning, early in March, that, under this posthumous order, the shipment of these guns had commenced, I communicated the fact to Secretary Holt (acting for Secretary Cameron) just in time to defeat the robbery. But on this point we may hear ex-Secretary Floyd himself. At Richmond he expressly claimed the honor of defeating all my plans and solicitations respecting the forts, and received his reward; it being there universally admitted that but for that victory over me there could have been no rebellion!
October 21st (search for this): article 14
from the dignity of the subject to which it relates. It is gratifying to observe that neither of our venerable and eminent correspondents, in controverting the statements of the other, transcends the limits of candid criticism while dealing with topics at once so delicate and partly of a personal nature. Lieut-Gen. Scott's rejoinder. To the Editors of the National Intelligencer: I regret to find myself in a controversy with the venerable ex-President Buchanan. Recently (October 21) you published my official report to President Lincoln dated March 30, 1861, giving a summary of my then recent connection with our principal Southern forts, which I am sorry to perceive has given offence to the ex-President. That result, purely incidental, did not enter into my purpose in drawing up the paper; but, on reflection, I suppose that, under the circumstances, offence was unavoidable. Let it be remembered, that the new President had a right to demand of me — the immediate
1st (search for this): article 14
rebels had been allowed to seize several of those forts, and from the bad condition of others were likely to gain possession of them also. Primarily the blame rested exclusively on me. Hence, to vindicate my sworn allegiance to the Union and professional conduct, the report was submitted to President Lincoln at an early day, (in his administration,) and recently to the world. To that short paper ex-President Buchanan publishes a reply of double the length in the Intelligencer, of the 1st inst. My rejoinder, from necessity, if not taste, will be short, for I hold the pen in a rheumatic hand, and am without aide-de-camp or amanuensis, and without a printed document and my own official papers. Unable, in my present condition, to make an analysis of the ex-President's long reply, I avail myself of a substitute furnished by an accidental visitor, who has kindly marked the few points which he thinks may require some slight notice at my hands. 1. To account for not having gar
December 13th (search for this): article 14
Unable, in my present condition, to make an analysis of the ex-President's long reply, I avail myself of a substitute furnished by an accidental visitor, who has kindly marked the few points which he thinks may require some slight notice at my hands. 1. To account for not having garrisoned sufficiently the Southern forts named against anticipated treason and rebellion, according to my many recommendations, beginning October 29, 1860, repeated the next day, and again more earnestly December 13, 15, 28, and 30, the ex-President says: "There were no available troops within reach." Now, I have nowhere said that either of those forts, even with the reinforcements indicated, would have had a war garrison. Certainly not — My proposition was to put each in a condition, as I expressly said, to guard against a surprise or coup de main (an off-hand attack--one without full preparation.) That these movements of small detachments might easily have been made in November and Decem
1 2 3 4 5