Browsing named entities in a specific section of Robert Underwood Johnson, Clarence Clough Buell, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War: Volume 2.. Search the whole document.
Found 110 total hits in 36 results.
The rear-guard at Malvern Hill. I.--by Henry E. Smith, Brevet Major, U. S. A. Referring to the retreat from Malvern Hill, July 2d, General McClellan gives KeMalvern Hill, July 2d, General McClellan gives Keyes's corps the credit of furnishing the entire rear-guard. According to the report of Colonel Averell, of the 3d Pennsylvania Cavalry, the rear-guard was made his c
enant in the 12th Infantry, and in command of Company D, First Battalion, at Malvern Hill, and remembers distinctly that the First Brigade of Regulars slept on the fi 642, which falsifies history.
It is under the heading, The rear-guard after Malvern Hill, and is signed Henry E. Smith. Mr. Smith asserts that it was General Averell ment of the troops was at once issued upon the final repulse of the enemy at Malvern Hill.
The order prescribed a movement by the left and rear, General Keyes's corp this explanation, and to the following short account of The rear-guard after Malvern Hill.
After the battle of Malvern Hill, which was fought on the 1st of July, 1
The rear-guard at Malvern Hill. I.--by Henry E. Smith, Brevet Major, U. S. A. Referring to the retreat from Malvern Hill, July 2d, General McClellan gives Ke
It is under the heading, The rear-guard after Malvern Hill, and is signed Henry E. Smith. Mr. Smith asserts that it was General Averell who commanded the rear-guardMr. Smith asserts that it was General Averell who commanded the rear-guard, and that to Averell, and not to Keyes, belongs the credit which General McClellan gives the latter in his article.
Mr. Smith cites authorities for his statements,Mr. Smith cites authorities for his statements, and refers to the Official Records of the Rebellion, Vol.
XI., Part II., p. 235, and to my report, p. 193, same volume, in which he says there is no mention of Averell.
It is not unreasonable to suppose that Mr. Smith had read General McClellan's and my reports, since he refers to them, but it is certain that he discredits bo lellan's article is vague in its expressions regarding the same subjects.
As Mr. Smith's article is historically erroneous, I trust you will consider it just to giv