hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity (current method)
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position
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) 324 0 Browse Search
Richmond (Virginia, United States) 294 28 Browse Search
Virginia (Virginia, United States) 262 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 210 2 Browse Search
Andersonville, Ga. (Georgia, United States) 177 1 Browse Search
Washington (United States) 162 2 Browse Search
Arkansas (Arkansas, United States) 116 0 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 114 0 Browse Search
Georgia (Georgia, United States) 106 0 Browse Search
William T. Sherman 105 1 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 1. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 574 total hits in 126 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
8th (search for this): chapter 3.18
Commissary of Prisoners of War, General Winder, for a detachment of Federal prisoners, to be employed in retaliation, should the occasion occur. I further recollect that your brother answered that, under his instructions from the Confederate War Department, he could not comply; also that, in his belief, prisoners could not right-fully be so employed. That General Sherman, as I had heard at the time, did so employ his prisoners, stands of record at page 194, vol. 2, of his Memoirs: On the 8th (December, 1864), as I rode along, I found the column turned out of the main road, marching through the fields. Close by, on the corner of a fence, was a group of men standing around a handsome young officer, whose foot had been blown to pieces by a torpedo planted in the road. * * * * He told me that he was riding along with the rest of his brigade staff of the Seventeenth Corps, when a torpedo, trodden on by his horse, had exploded, killing the horse and literally blowing off all the flesh
August (search for this): chapter 3.18
was between that of the Assistant Secretary and the Secretary, and the latter passed through mine with the paper in his hand. I testified to these facts before the Wirz Commission, and also to this further. As well as I remember it was early in August that these endorsements were made. In October, Colonel Chandler, who was, I think, a Mississippian, and with whom I had no previous acquaintance, presented himself in my office, and stated to me that he had been officially informed that General Winder, on being called on in August for a response to the parts of his report which reflected on or blamed him (Winder), had responded by making an issue of veracity with him (Chandler); that he (C.) had promptly demanded a court of inquiry, but that none had been ever ordered. He expressed himself as very unwilling to lie under such an imputation, and urgently desirous to have the subject investigated. His appearance and manner were very good-those of a gentleman and a man of honor; and, in
October (search for this): chapter 3.18
tant Secretary of War, and told him of the horrors it disclosed. He read it, and made on it an endorsement substantially the same quoted, and carried it to Mr. Seddon, then Secretary of War. My office was between that of the Assistant Secretary and the Secretary, and the latter passed through mine with the paper in his hand. I testified to these facts before the Wirz Commission, and also to this further. As well as I remember it was early in August that these endorsements were made. In October, Colonel Chandler, who was, I think, a Mississippian, and with whom I had no previous acquaintance, presented himself in my office, and stated to me that he had been officially informed that General Winder, on being called on in August for a response to the parts of his report which reflected on or blamed him (Winder), had responded by making an issue of veracity with him (Chandler); that he (C.) had promptly demanded a court of inquiry, but that none had been ever ordered. He expressed hi
December 13th (search for this): chapter 3.18
there pretend that he acted in retaliation at all, but because, forsooth he was angry that one of his officers had been badly wounded by a torpedo which had been planted in his path without giving warning of danger ! Surely his own narrative, with its painful levity, gives as bad a hue to the affair as General Sherman's worst enemies could desire. It remains to be said that he omits mention of another instance of this unwarrantable employment of prisoners of war. After General Hazen (on December 13) had handsomely assaulted and carried Fort McAllister, General Sherman, in person, ordered the Confederate engineer officer of the fort, with men of that garrison then prisoners, to remove all the torpedoes in front of the fort which might remain unexploded; gallant soldiers who, under their commander, Major G. W. Anderson, had only succumbed as each man was individually overpowered. （General Hazen's official report). Major Anderson, in his report, says: This hazardous duty (removal of t
1861 AD (search for this): chapter 3.18
d of exploding them and deserve credit for the act! A strange obliquity in the general-in-chief of an army which has, at the present moment, a special torpedo corps attached to it as an important defensive resource to fortified places; in one who, moreover, was carefully taught at West Point how to plant the equivalent of torpedoes as known to engineers of that date--i. e., crows'-feet, trous-de-loups, fougasses, mines, etc. For my part, from the day of the capitulation of Fort Sumter, in 1861, when, in order to save a brave soldier and his command from all unnecessary humiliation, I allowed Major Anderson the same terms offered him before the attack--i. e., to salute his flag with fifty guns, and to go forth with colors flying and drums beating,. taking off company and private property — down to the close of the war, I always favored and practiced liberal treatment of prisoners. At the same time, however, I always urged the policy of rigid and prompt retaliation, at all cost, for
March 21st, 1863 AD (search for this): chapter 3.18
columns with so long a communication, but I could not well do justice to the subject in less space. Yours, respectfully, Ro. Ould. We will add an explanation of another letter which purports to have been written by Judge Ould during the war, and which has been widely circulated in the Radical papers as proof positive of inexcusable cruelty to prisoners. The popular version of this letter is as follows: Confederate States of America, war Department, Richmond, Virginia, March 21, 1863. My Dear Sir — If the exigencies of our army require the use of trains for the transportation of corn, pay no regard to the Yankee prisoners. I would rather they should starve than our own people suffer. I suppose I can safely put it in writing, Let them suffer. Very truly, your faithful friend, Ro. Ould. Colonel A. C. Myers. Judge Ould says that he does not remember ever to have written such a letter, and we have searched his letter-book (in which he was accustomed to h
August, 1863 AD (search for this): chapter 3.18
urse, is between ourselves. S. gives as the date of my letter, in his first communication, August 1, 1864. In his last communication S. admits his mistake, or that of the compositor, and says that the true date is August 1, 1863. It will be seen, according to the copy in the Chronicle, that the letter has no date. It is the veriest pretence for S. to shift his date from August 1, 1864, to August 1, 1863. I am confident the letter had no date, and that it was written long before August, 1863. Your readers can draw their own conclusion as to this double attempt to change the face of my letter. But, dates aside, I ask your attention to the difference of the two versions. S. not only cuts off the first part of the letter, which explains the purport of the latter part, but he adds to the original the words, this of course is between ourselves. In his last communication he makes great ado about these words, and lo! they now turn out to be a forgery. I do not think they am
August 1st, 1863 AD (search for this): chapter 3.18
ever saw. This, of course, is between ourselves. S. gives as the date of my letter, in his first communication, August 1, 1864. In his last communication S. admits his mistake, or that of the compositor, and says that the true date is August 1, 1863. It will be seen, according to the copy in the Chronicle, that the letter has no date. It is the veriest pretence for S. to shift his date from August 1, 1864, to August 1, 1863. I am confident the letter had no date, and that it was writAugust 1, 1863. I am confident the letter had no date, and that it was written long before August, 1863. Your readers can draw their own conclusion as to this double attempt to change the face of my letter. But, dates aside, I ask your attention to the difference of the two versions. S. not only cuts off the first part of the letter, which explains the purport of the latter part, but he adds to the original the words, this of course is between ourselves. In his last communication he makes great ado about these words, and lo! they now turn out to be a forgery.
1864 AD (search for this): chapter 3.18
y died like sheep, despite the tender nursing and kind, watchful care which (according to Mr. Blaine). they received at the hands of their captors, how could a Government which had not the means of making better provision for its own soldiers provide any better than we did for the thousands of prisoners which were captured by these emaciated skeletons? And what shall we say of General Grant and his splendid army of two hundred thousand hale, hearty, well equipped men, who, in the campaign of 1864, were beaten on every field by forty thousand of these emaciated and reduced creatures, until, after losing over a third of their men, they were compelled to skulk behind their fortifications at Petersburg, and absolutely refused the open field and fair fight, which Lee and his ragamuffins offered them at every point from the Wilderness to Petersburg? But, of course, the whole thing is absurd. Our men were on half rations, and in rags, it is true; but a healthier, hardier set of fellows n
July, 1864 AD (search for this): chapter 3.18
r to these just complaints. And I feel a conviction that the truth will one day be vindicated; that, having reference to relative resources, Federal prisoners were more humanely dealt with in Confederate hands than Confederate prisoners were in Federal hands. It was their interest, on a cold-blooded calculation, to stop exchanges when they did it-and as soon as it was their interest, they did it without scruple or mercy. The responsibility of the lives lost at Andersonville rests, since July, 1864, on General Meredith, Commissary-General of Prisoners, and (chiefly) on Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War. No one of sound head or heart would now hold the Northern people responsible for these things. The blood is on the skirts of their then rulers; and neither Mr. Garfield nor Mr. Blaine can change the record. I never heard that there was any particular suffering at Libby or Belle Isle, and do not believe there was. Crowded prisons are not comfortable places, as our poor fellows fo
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...