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
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 47 total hits in 22 results.

1 2 3
e 31st May, 1863, and not a field return. I, therefore, took the total amount of the column headed effective total --viz., 68,352-as representing what is generally understood by that term, and under the impression that the extensions under that column embraced the officers and men present for duty. I was the more naturally led into this error, as Mr. Swinton, whose figures I had before me, had done precisely the same thing. Lieutenant-General Early having directed my attention, on the 9th instant, to the discrepancy between certain figures given by General Humphreys from the same return to the Comte de Paris and mny own, and having expressed his apprehension that I took the figures from the column headed effective total, inasmuch as, excluding the cavalry, the strength of the army as taken from the field return of the 20th May, 1863, was greater than that taken from the monthly report of the 31st May, 1863, I began to suspect that the officers were not included in the estimate giv
ously explained, but I prefer to adopt the greatest number as shown by the official reports; and in like manner I would persist in estimating the strength of the Federal army by the statement of General Hooker to General Halleck, made on the 27th day of June, to the effect that his whole force of enlisted men present for duty would not exceed 105,000. As General Hooker thus gave only his enlisted men present for duty, perhaps the figures originally given by me as the strength of General Lee'slisted men present for duty. For if we add to the 105,000 enlisted men of the Federal army the same proportion for officers as that found in the Confederate army, it would raise the effective strength of the former to fully 115,000 on the 27th day of June, four days previous to the battle. View these figures as one will, the disparity in numerical strength is very apparent. Historical accuracy being my great aim in all that I have to say upon this subject, I hasten to correct the error in
May 20th, 1863 AD (search for this): chapter 3.18
error, as Mr. Swinton, whose figures I had before me, had done precisely the same thing. Lieutenant-General Early having directed my attention, on the 9th instant, to the discrepancy between certain figures given by General Humphreys from the same return to the Comte de Paris and mny own, and having expressed his apprehension that I took the figures from the column headed effective total, inasmuch as, excluding the cavalry, the strength of the army as taken from the field return of the 20th May, 1863, was greater than that taken from the monthly report of the 31st May, 1863, I began to suspect that the officers were not included in the estimate given. I at once made application to the War Department for the information necessary to settle the matter, and having been kindly favored with a prompt reply to my request, I have been enabled to review my figures, and find that the estimate of strength on the 31st May, 1863, does not include the officers present for duty. At that date the
May 31st, 1863 AD (search for this): chapter 3.18
ened that the basis of my estimate of the strength of General Lee's army at Gettysburg was the monthly report of the 31st May, 1863, and not a field return. I, therefore, took the total amount of the column headed effective total --viz., 68,352-as rrmy as taken from the field return of the 20th May, 1863, was greater than that taken from the monthly report of the 31st May, 1863, I began to suspect that the officers were not included in the estimate given. I at once made application to the War prompt reply to my request, I have been enabled to review my figures, and find that the estimate of strength on the 31st May, 1863, does not include the officers present for duty. At that date the effective strength of General Lee's army was as fohe error into which I have inadvertently fallen along with Mr. Swinton. Strength of the army of Northern Virginia, May 31st, 1863. commands.Present for Duty.Effective Total. Enlisted Men.Officers. First Army Corps: General Staff13 Anderson's
May 31st, 1873 AD (search for this): chapter 3.18
greatest number as shown by the official reports; and in like manner I would persist in estimating the strength of the Federal army by the statement of General Hooker to General Halleck, made on the 27th day of June, to the effect that his whole force of enlisted men present for duty would not exceed 105,000. As General Hooker thus gave only his enlisted men present for duty, perhaps the figures originally given by me as the strength of General Lee's army — that is say, 67,452 on the 31st May, 1873, and 62,000 at Gettysburg — should be employed in the comparison, as they represent also his enlisted men present for duty. For if we add to the 105,000 enlisted men of the Federal army the same proportion for officers as that found in the Confederate army, it would raise the effective strength of the former to fully 115,000 on the 27th day of June, four days previous to the battle. View these figures as one will, the disparity in numerical strength is very apparent. Historical ac
R. H. Anderson (search for this): chapter 3.18
rate army, it would raise the effective strength of the former to fully 115,000 on the 27th day of June, four days previous to the battle. View these figures as one will, the disparity in numerical strength is very apparent. Historical accuracy being my great aim in all that I have to say upon this subject, I hasten to correct the error into which I have inadvertently fallen along with Mr. Swinton. Strength of the army of Northern Virginia, May 31st, 1863. commands.Present for Duty.Effective Total. Enlisted Men.Officers. First Army Corps: General Staff13 Anderson's Division6,797643 McLaws' Division6,684627 Hood's Division7,030690 Pickett's Division6,072615 Total First Corps26,5832,58829,171 Second Army Corps: General Staff17 A. P. Hill's Division8,501798 Rodes' Division7,815648 Early's Division6,368575 Johnson's Division5,089475 Total Second Corps27,7732,51330,286 Cavalry9,53675610,292 Artillery4,4602424,702 Total effective Army of Northern Virginia 74, 4561
J. A. Early (search for this): chapter 3.18
nder the impression that the extensions under that column embraced the officers and men present for duty. I was the more naturally led into this error, as Mr. Swinton, whose figures I had before me, had done precisely the same thing. Lieutenant-General Early having directed my attention, on the 9th instant, to the discrepancy between certain figures given by General Humphreys from the same return to the Comte de Paris and mny own, and having expressed his apprehension that I took the figuresive Total. Enlisted Men.Officers. First Army Corps: General Staff13 Anderson's Division6,797643 McLaws' Division6,684627 Hood's Division7,030690 Pickett's Division6,072615 Total First Corps26,5832,58829,171 Second Army Corps: General Staff17 A. P. Hill's Division8,501798 Rodes' Division7,815648 Early's Division6,368575 Johnson's Division5,089475 Total Second Corps27,7732,51330,286 Cavalry9,53675610,292 Artillery4,4602424,702 Total effective Army of Northern Virginia 74, 4561
e reasoning as that originally pursued, I would say that General Lee had at Gettysburg, including all the cavalry, 67,000 men — that is to say, 53,500 infantry, 9,000 cavalry, and 4,500 artillery. Of course this number was not available to him at any one time, as I have previously explained, but I prefer to adopt the greatest number as shown by the official reports; and in like manner I would persist in estimating the strength of the Federal army by the statement of General Hooker to General Halleck, made on the 27th day of June, to the effect that his whole force of enlisted men present for duty would not exceed 105,000. As General Hooker thus gave only his enlisted men present for duty, perhaps the figures originally given by me as the strength of General Lee's army — that is say, 67,452 on the 31st May, 1873, and 62,000 at Gettysburg — should be employed in the comparison, as they represent also his enlisted men present for duty. For if we add to the 105,000 enlisted men o<
enabled to review my figures, and find that the estimate of strength on the 31st May, 1863, does not include the officers present for duty. At that date the effective strength of General Lee's army was as follows: Longstreet's command, 29,171; A. P. Hill's command, 30,286; cavalry, 10,292; artillery, 4,702. Total effective of all arms, 74,451. And carrying out the same reasoning as that originally pursued, I would say that General Lee had at Gettysburg, including all the cavalry, 67,000 men — tive Total. Enlisted Men.Officers. First Army Corps: General Staff13 Anderson's Division6,797643 McLaws' Division6,684627 Hood's Division7,030690 Pickett's Division6,072615 Total First Corps26,5832,58829,171 Second Army Corps: General Staff17 A. P. Hill's Division8,501798 Rodes' Division7,815648 Early's Division6,368575 Johnson's Division5,089475 Total Second Corps27,7732,51330,286 Cavalry9,53675610,292 Artillery4,4602424,702 Total effective Army of Northern Virginia 74, 4561
rate army, it would raise the effective strength of the former to fully 115,000 on the 27th day of June, four days previous to the battle. View these figures as one will, the disparity in numerical strength is very apparent. Historical accuracy being my great aim in all that I have to say upon this subject, I hasten to correct the error into which I have inadvertently fallen along with Mr. Swinton. Strength of the army of Northern Virginia, May 31st, 1863. commands.Present for Duty.Effective Total. Enlisted Men.Officers. First Army Corps: General Staff13 Anderson's Division6,797643 McLaws' Division6,684627 Hood's Division7,030690 Pickett's Division6,072615 Total First Corps26,5832,58829,171 Second Army Corps: General Staff17 A. P. Hill's Division8,501798 Rodes' Division7,815648 Early's Division6,368575 Johnson's Division5,089475 Total Second Corps27,7732,51330,286 Cavalry9,53675610,292 Artillery4,4602424,702 Total effective Army of Northern Virginia 74, 4561
1 2 3