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 47 total hits in 22 results.

1 2 3
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
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
1 2 3