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
U. S. Grant 194 0 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 130 0 Browse Search
Robert E. Lee 115 11 Browse Search
J. Longstreet 114 0 Browse Search
Fitzhugh Lee 111 13 Browse Search
A. P. Hill 110 6 Browse Search
United States (United States) 104 0 Browse Search
W. H. F. Lee 100 2 Browse Search
S. D. Ramseur 95 1 Browse Search
George G. Meade 88 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 2. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 23 total hits in 10 results.

South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 5.30
Letter from General A. L. Long. To J. William Jones, D. D., Secretary of the Southern Historical Society: Dear Sir — Having received through General Beauregard the June number of the Southern Historical Papers, containing a criticism by General Thomas Jordan of my article on the Seacoast Defence of South Carolina and Georgia, published in the February number of that magazine, I would be glad through the same source, without receding from my statement embraced in that article, to disclaim the intention of ignoring the services of General Beauregard and others in the important work of seacoast defence, either prior or subsequent to the operations of General Lee. It was my purpose to write a chapter on the subsequent defence of the coast, in which I intended to record faithfully the operations of Beauregard and others, but the article of General Jordan will probably render this unnecessary. I will, however, in this connection, venture the assertion that the article of Genera
Georgia (Georgia, United States) (search for this): chapter 5.30
Letter from General A. L. Long. To J. William Jones, D. D., Secretary of the Southern Historical Society: Dear Sir — Having received through General Beauregard the June number of the Southern Historical Papers, containing a criticism by General Thomas Jordan of my article on the Seacoast Defence of South Carolina and Georgia, published in the February number of that magazine, I would be glad through the same source, without receding from my statement embraced in that article, to disclaim the intention of ignoring the services of General Beauregard and others in the important work of seacoast defence, either prior or subsequent to the operations of General Lee. It was my purpose to write a chapter on the subsequent defence of the coast, in which I intended to record faithfully the operations of Beauregard and others, but the article of General Jordan will probably render this unnecessary. I will, however, in this connection, venture the assertion that the article of Gener
A. L. Long (search for this): chapter 5.30
Letter from General A. L. Long. To J. William Jones, D. D., Secretary of the Southern Historical Society: Dear Sir — Having received through General Beauregard the June number of the Southern Historical Papers, containing a criticism by General Thomas Jordan of my article on the Seacoast Defence of South Carolina and Georgia, published in the February number of that magazine, I would be glad through the same source, without receding from my statement embraced in that article, to disclain what material particular General Lee's original system of seacoast defence was departed from. In conclusion, I regret that my article should have been construed into an act of injustice to General Beauregard; such, certainly, was not my intention. My sketch was not written in any spirit of controversy, but at the instance of friends, simply to supply an absent link in the military history of General Lee, which circumstances enabled me to furnish. Very respectfully, &c., A. L. Long.
J. F. Gilmer (search for this): chapter 5.30
ly render this unnecessary. I will, however, in this connection, venture the assertion that the article of General Jordan would have been more valuable as an historical production, if he had more clearly stated in what important points General Lee's plan of seacoast defence was changed by his successor. It is well known that after being battered down during a protracted seige, Fort Sumter was remodeled, and rendered vastly stronger than it had previously been, by the skillful hand of General Gilmer, Chief of the Confederate Engineer Corps, and that various points were powerfully strengthened to resist the formidable forces that threatened them. Doubtless in those instances the original lines were more or less modified to meet the varying phases of war, but I am yet to learn in what material particular General Lee's original system of seacoast defence was departed from. In conclusion, I regret that my article should have been construed into an act of injustice to General Beaureg
J. William Jones (search for this): chapter 5.30
Letter from General A. L. Long. To J. William Jones, D. D., Secretary of the Southern Historical Society: Dear Sir — Having received through General Beauregard the June number of the Southern Historical Papers, containing a criticism by General Thomas Jordan of my article on the Seacoast Defence of South Carolina and Georgia, published in the February number of that magazine, I would be glad through the same source, without receding from my statement embraced in that article, to disclaim the intention of ignoring the services of General Beauregard and others in the important work of seacoast defence, either prior or subsequent to the operations of General Lee. It was my purpose to write a chapter on the subsequent defence of the coast, in which I intended to record faithfully the operations of Beauregard and others, but the article of General Jordan will probably render this unnecessary. I will, however, in this connection, venture the assertion that the article of Gener
Thomas Jordan (search for this): chapter 5.30
n Historical Society: Dear Sir — Having received through General Beauregard the June number of the Southern Historical Papers, containing a criticism by General Thomas Jordan of my article on the Seacoast Defence of South Carolina and Georgia, published in the February number of that magazine, I would be glad through the same soo write a chapter on the subsequent defence of the coast, in which I intended to record faithfully the operations of Beauregard and others, but the article of General Jordan will probably render this unnecessary. I will, however, in this connection, venture the assertion that the article of General Jordan would have been more valGeneral Jordan would have been more valuable as an historical production, if he had more clearly stated in what important points General Lee's plan of seacoast defence was changed by his successor. It is well known that after being battered down during a protracted seige, Fort Sumter was remodeled, and rendered vastly stronger than it had previously been, by the ski
Beauregard (search for this): chapter 5.30
To J. William Jones, D. D., Secretary of the Southern Historical Society: Dear Sir — Having received through General Beauregard the June number of the Southern Historical Papers, containing a criticism by General Thomas Jordan of my article on without receding from my statement embraced in that article, to disclaim the intention of ignoring the services of General Beauregard and others in the important work of seacoast defence, either prior or subsequent to the operations of General Lee. e to write a chapter on the subsequent defence of the coast, in which I intended to record faithfully the operations of Beauregard and others, but the article of General Jordan will probably render this unnecessary. I will, however, in this connecti was departed from. In conclusion, I regret that my article should have been construed into an act of injustice to General Beauregard; such, certainly, was not my intention. My sketch was not written in any spirit of controversy, but at the insta
Robert E. Lee (search for this): chapter 5.30
neral Beauregard and others in the important work of seacoast defence, either prior or subsequent to the operations of General Lee. It was my purpose to write a chapter on the subsequent defence of the coast, in which I intended to record faithfurdan would have been more valuable as an historical production, if he had more clearly stated in what important points General Lee's plan of seacoast defence was changed by his successor. It is well known that after being battered down during a p lines were more or less modified to meet the varying phases of war, but I am yet to learn in what material particular General Lee's original system of seacoast defence was departed from. In conclusion, I regret that my article should have been con. My sketch was not written in any spirit of controversy, but at the instance of friends, simply to supply an absent link in the military history of General Lee, which circumstances enabled me to furnish. Very respectfully, &c., A. L. Long.
June (search for this): chapter 5.30
Letter from General A. L. Long. To J. William Jones, D. D., Secretary of the Southern Historical Society: Dear Sir — Having received through General Beauregard the June number of the Southern Historical Papers, containing a criticism by General Thomas Jordan of my article on the Seacoast Defence of South Carolina and Georgia, published in the February number of that magazine, I would be glad through the same source, without receding from my statement embraced in that article, to disclaim the intention of ignoring the services of General Beauregard and others in the important work of seacoast defence, either prior or subsequent to the operations of General Lee. It was my purpose to write a chapter on the subsequent defence of the coast, in which I intended to record faithfully the operations of Beauregard and others, but the article of General Jordan will probably render this unnecessary. I will, however, in this connection, venture the assertion that the article of Genera
February (search for this): chapter 5.30
Letter from General A. L. Long. To J. William Jones, D. D., Secretary of the Southern Historical Society: Dear Sir — Having received through General Beauregard the June number of the Southern Historical Papers, containing a criticism by General Thomas Jordan of my article on the Seacoast Defence of South Carolina and Georgia, published in the February number of that magazine, I would be glad through the same source, without receding from my statement embraced in that article, to disclaim the intention of ignoring the services of General Beauregard and others in the important work of seacoast defence, either prior or subsequent to the operations of General Lee. It was my purpose to write a chapter on the subsequent defence of the coast, in which I intended to record faithfully the operations of Beauregard and others, but the article of General Jordan will probably render this unnecessary. I will, however, in this connection, venture the assertion that the article of Genera