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 465 11 Browse Search
James Longstreet 457 5 Browse Search
Gettysburg (Pennsylvania, United States) 301 1 Browse Search
Gederal Meade 240 0 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 182 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 151 5 Browse Search
Ewell 141 29 Browse Search
Pickett 141 11 Browse Search
Grant 130 12 Browse Search
Fitz Lee 120 4 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 157 total hits in 54 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Louis Philippe D'Orleans (search for this): chapter 1.3
ing the same questions to some of the Confederate leaders who are still alive, and with whom you are in correspondence. The opinion of General Early, for whom I have the greatest consideration as a soldier, would be especially valuable for me. Of course I do not pledge myself to accept wholly any one's opinion, but it would be of the greatest importance for me to know what Confederate officers think now of the causes of their repulse at Gettysburg. Believe me, dear sir, yours truly, L. P. D'Orleans, Comte de Paris. [Address: Chateau d'eu Seine-Inferieure, France.] Letter from Maj. Scheibert, of the Prussian Royal Engineers. [As the opinion of a distinguished foreigner who witnessed the battle of Gettysburg and has manifested the liveliest interest in the discussion concerning it, the following letter will have an interest for all of our readers; but for those who knew the gallant Prussian, and appreciated his warm sympathy for our struggling people, it will have a peculiar
lly the battle of Gettysburg was managed by General Lee and his subordinates. It will be seen inf is, that as soon as the latter began to move, Lee, who had undertaken nothing but a raid on a tooancellorsville. 4th. 1 do not understand why Lee, having gained some success on the 2nd, but fouhat it was imposed upon him against his will by Lee. General Early says distinctly, in a paper publhe woody country. I had so good a view that Gen'l Lee himself came up to the tree twice to ask abonce. I refer to the individual character of Gen'l Lee. I have made the military character of thisoops which were ordered to execute them. General Lee, in speaking to me of his dispositions, sai to keep up the hosehold. When Jackson fell, Lee, as he himself said, lost his right arm, the arnot been filled. After this it was filled by Lee himself, who, like a father when the mother diecene at Appomattox was the most brilliant which Lee ever fought. We European soldiers have only [4 more...]
J. A. Early (search for this): chapter 1.3
rson's brigade, Brigadier-General H. L. Benning, Brigadier-Gereral J. B. Kershaw, Colonel E. P. Alexander, and Brigadier-General J. H. Lane. The reports of Generals Early, and Ewell had been previously published in the Southern Magazine, and the report of General W. N. Pendleton, Chief of Artillery, Army Nothern Virginia, whichc but foolish attack of Pickett, on the 3rd, should never have been attempted. Longstreet seems to think that it was imposed upon him against his will by Lee. General Early says distinctly, in a paper published by the Southern Historical Society, that Longstreet deferred it so long that the Second corps could not co-operate with i you may help me by putting the same questions to some of the Confederate leaders who are still alive, and with whom you are in correspondence. The opinion of General Early, for whom I have the greatest consideration as a soldier, would be especially valuable for me. Of course I do not pledge myself to accept wholly any one's opin
nd Port Hudson, is, in that respect, the turning point of the war. The Army of Northern Virginia, when it invaded the Northern States was more powerful than it had ever been before. The issue of the invasion was disastrous for the Confederate cause. This is a mere fact which neither a Southerner nor a Northerner can dispute. Therefore, I must show the causes of this disaster without any disparagement for the army or its leader, just as I pointed out the causes of the ill successes of McClellan and Burnside, and shall do the same for Hooker. At present, as far as my studies of this period go, my opinion on the question is this: The mistakes which brought upon the Confederate arms the repulse at Gettysburg with its fatal consequences were the following: 1st. It was a mistake to invade the Northern States at all, because it stirred up their military spirit. The best chance of the Confederacy was the pecuniary exhaustion of the North, and not the exhaustion of its resources
J. E. B. Stuart (search for this): chapter 1.3
without note or comment of our own. Besides these we have published at different times the official reports of Generals R. E. Lee, Longstreet, A. P. Hill, J. E. B. Stuart, Rodes, R. H. Anderson, Brigadier-General J. B. Robertson, Colonel W. W. White, commanding Anderson's brigade, Brigadier-General H. L. Benning, Brigadier-Gere every link the right place in the construction of a chain which became a masterpiece of military workmanship. He did not reach his conclusions, as Jackson and Stuart did, by an instinctive, sudden impulse; his plans did not come upon him like the lightning's flash followed by the thunder's crash: but he painfully and studiousl in the top of the tree, believed to be .only a reconnoisance in heavy force. Want of confidence, misapprehensions, and mistakes were the consequences, less of Stuart's absence than of the absence of Jackson, whose place up to this time had not been filled. After this it was filled by Lee himself, who, like a father when the
. The way in which the fights of the 2nd of July were directed does not show the same co-ordination which ensured the success of the Southern arms at Gaines' Mill and Chancellorsville. 4th. 1 do not understand why Lee, having gained some success on the 2nd, but found the Federal position very strong, did not attempt to turn it by the south, which was its weak place, by extending his right so as to endanger Meade's communications with Washington. 5th. The heroic but foolish attack of Pickett, on the 3rd, should never have been attempted. Longstreet seems to think that it was imposed upon him against his will by Lee. General Early says distinctly, in a paper published by the Southern Historical Society, that Longstreet deferred it so long that the Second corps could not co-operate with it as it would have done if the attack had taken place early in the morning. I hesitate very much between these two opinions. I put these questions to you in a letter which I wish you to keep
Count of Paris, and have published in our papers without note or comment of our own. Besides these we have published at different times the official reports of Generals R. E. Lee, Longstreet, A. P. Hill, J. E. B. Stuart, Rodes, R. H. Anderson, Brigadier-General J. B. Robertson, Colonel W. W. White, commanding Anderson's brigade, Brigadier-General H. L. Benning, Brigadier-Gereral J. B. Kershaw, Colonel E. P. Alexander, and Brigadier-General J. H. Lane. The reports of Generals Early, and Ewell had been previously published in the Southern Magazine, and the report of General W. N. Pendleton, Chief of Artillery, Army Nothern Virginia, which is crowded out of this number, will be published hereafter. These letters and official reports, and the other papers which we have published have made a series which has excited wide interest and attention, and called forth warm expressions as to their value and importance. The Count of Paris says, in a recent letter concerning these papers
t Gen'l Lee himself came up to the tree twice to ask about the positions and movements of the enemy. It was the same tree upon which Col. Freemantle sat (see Gen'l Hood's letter) until the opening of the battle, when (longing to see a fight, which he had never seen before,) he left his position. The questions of the English s faithful mirror, the cavalry, and without his ready counsellor, General Jackson. He himself felt this great loss in making his dispositions. He felt uneasy, as Hood justly remarks. All who saw him on these two occasions, Chancellorsville and Gettysburg, will remember that Lee at Chancellorsville (where I had the honor of beasterly ability which was peculiar to him. This uneasiness during the days of the battle was contagious to the army, as will appear from the reports of Longstreet, Hood, Heth, and others, and as appeared also to me from the peep I had of the battle-field. What a difference from the systematic advance of the army from the Wilderne
lish. We sent some twenty-five copies of this letter to leading Confederates who participated in the battle and were in position to know its inside history, selecting representatives of every corps and division of our army, and of every arm of the service. The replies received we forwarded to the Count of Paris, and have published in our papers without note or comment of our own. Besides these we have published at different times the official reports of Generals R. E. Lee, Longstreet, A. P. Hill, J. E. B. Stuart, Rodes, R. H. Anderson, Brigadier-General J. B. Robertson, Colonel W. W. White, commanding Anderson's brigade, Brigadier-General H. L. Benning, Brigadier-Gereral J. B. Kershaw, Colonel E. P. Alexander, and Brigadier-General J. H. Lane. The reports of Generals Early, and Ewell had been previously published in the Southern Magazine, and the report of General W. N. Pendleton, Chief of Artillery, Army Nothern Virginia, which is crowded out of this number, will be published
E. P. Alexander (search for this): chapter 1.3
of our army, and of every arm of the service. The replies received we forwarded to the Count of Paris, and have published in our papers without note or comment of our own. Besides these we have published at different times the official reports of Generals R. E. Lee, Longstreet, A. P. Hill, J. E. B. Stuart, Rodes, R. H. Anderson, Brigadier-General J. B. Robertson, Colonel W. W. White, commanding Anderson's brigade, Brigadier-General H. L. Benning, Brigadier-Gereral J. B. Kershaw, Colonel E. P. Alexander, and Brigadier-General J. H. Lane. The reports of Generals Early, and Ewell had been previously published in the Southern Magazine, and the report of General W. N. Pendleton, Chief of Artillery, Army Nothern Virginia, which is crowded out of this number, will be published hereafter. These letters and official reports, and the other papers which we have published have made a series which has excited wide interest and attention, and called forth warm expressions as to their valu
1 2 3 4 5 6