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
James Longstreet 388 2 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 252 0 Browse Search
Stonewall Jackson 248 0 Browse Search
A. P. Hill 176 6 Browse Search
Gettysburg (Pennsylvania, United States) 158 0 Browse Search
S. D. Lee 154 0 Browse Search
U. S. Grant 138 0 Browse Search
Generals Longstreet 114 0 Browse Search
Plank (Pennsylvania, United States) 106 0 Browse Search
John B. Hood 88 4 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 6. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 110 total hits in 33 results.

1 2 3 4
Hanover Court House (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 3.20
at General Grant had on that campaign four times as many men as Lee could command. General Grant says that Lee was of a slow, cautious, conservative nature. But when military critics come to study this campaign in the light of all of the facts — when they see that so soon as Grant crossed the Rapidan with his mighty host, Lee, instead of retreating, advanced at once upon him and forced the death grapple of the Wilderness — that he boldly withstood him at Spotsylvania Courthouse, at Hanover Junction, and at Bethesda Church, and that after dealing him the crushing defeat at Cold Harbor, Lee was just about to attack Grant when he crossed the James and sat down to the siege of Petersburg — we think that they will hardly accept this table-talk as true, but will rather conclude that Lee was one of the boldest soldiers of all history. The simple truth is that on that great campaign Lee foiled Grant in every move he made, defeated him in every battle they fought, and so completely crushe<
Jackson (Mississippi, United States) (search for this): chapter 3.20
f Northern papers have had severe criticisms of statements in reference to different Federal Generals, but of these we have nothing to say; nor do we propose any detailed reply to his comments on Southern Generals. His disparaging remarks about Stonewall Jackson, and his opinion that he would have been badly beaten if Sheridan or any of our great generals had been opposed to him, excite a smile and a fervent wish from an old foot cavalryman that Sheridan, or even Grant himself, had been in Jackson's front on that memorable Valley campaign. It is useless to speculate on what the result would have been; but we feel every confidence that Cavalry Sheridan would never afterwards have awakened the poet's lyre, and that the world would never have had this table-talk. His remark, I have had nearly all of the Southern Generals in high command in front of me, and Johnston gave me more anxiety than any of the others; I was never half so anxious about Lee, has very naturally raised the quest
Europe (search for this): chapter 3.20
unced him I the very best soldier I ever saw in the field. General George Meade said that he was by far the ablest Confederate General which the war produced --and the overwhelming testimony of the Northern press is in the same direction, while European critics concur in giving Lee a place second to none of the generals on the other side, not a few of them ranking him as the ablest general of all history. Since such, then, is the opinion which the world holds of Robert E. Lee, his friends maent facts that we soon lost large portions of our territory — that the United States recruited very largely from our negro population, and that by means of large bounties and other inducements the Federal armies drew from the dense populations of Europe a very large proportion of their levies, and it will be seen that the odds against us must to have been enormous. As for General Grant's statement that our 4,000,000 of negroes were the same as soldiers because they did the work in the fields wh
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 3.20
erate armies; so that the total population upon which the Confederacy could draw was really only 5,447,220, while the United States had (exclusive of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri) a population of 19,011,300. Add to this the patent facts that we soon lost large portions of our territory — that the United States recruited very largely from our negro population, and that by means of large bounties and other inducements the Federal armies drew from the dense populations of Europe a very large Secretary Stanton (page 31 of his report for 1865) states,that there were actually mustered into the service of the United States from the 15th of April, 1861, to the 14th of April, 1865, 2,656,553 men. Mr. Swinton, who had free access to the Conf service during the same period, and this estimate is very nearly correct; so that the official figures show that the United States had in service more than four times as many men as the Confederacy had. Mr. Stanton states in his report (page 5)
Maryland (Maryland, United States) (search for this): chapter 3.20
ndeavored to force this misrepresentation of facts into history. The census of 1860 shows that the fourteen States from which the Confederacy drew any part of its forces had a white population of only 7,946,111, of which 2,498,891 belonged to Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, which three States furnished more men (because of force of surrounding circumstances) to the Federal than to the Confederate armies; so that the total population upon which the Confederacy could draw was really only 5,447,220, while the United States had (exclusive of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri) a population of 19,011,300. Add to this the patent facts that we soon lost large portions of our territory — that the United States recruited very largely from our negro population, and that by means of large bounties and other inducements the Federal armies drew from the dense populations of Europe a very large proportion of their levies, and it will be seen that the odds against us must to have been enormous. As
Missouri (Missouri, United States) (search for this): chapter 3.20
misrepresentation of facts into history. The census of 1860 shows that the fourteen States from which the Confederacy drew any part of its forces had a white population of only 7,946,111, of which 2,498,891 belonged to Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, which three States furnished more men (because of force of surrounding circumstances) to the Federal than to the Confederate armies; so that the total population upon which the Confederacy could draw was really only 5,447,220, while the United States had (exclusive of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri) a population of 19,011,300. Add to this the patent facts that we soon lost large portions of our territory — that the United States recruited very largely from our negro population, and that by means of large bounties and other inducements the Federal armies drew from the dense populations of Europe a very large proportion of their levies, and it will be seen that the odds against us must to have been enormous. As for General Grant's st
Kentucky (Kentucky, United States) (search for this): chapter 3.20
to force this misrepresentation of facts into history. The census of 1860 shows that the fourteen States from which the Confederacy drew any part of its forces had a white population of only 7,946,111, of which 2,498,891 belonged to Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, which three States furnished more men (because of force of surrounding circumstances) to the Federal than to the Confederate armies; so that the total population upon which the Confederacy could draw was really only 5,447,220, while the United States had (exclusive of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri) a population of 19,011,300. Add to this the patent facts that we soon lost large portions of our territory — that the United States recruited very largely from our negro population, and that by means of large bounties and other inducements the Federal armies drew from the dense populations of Europe a very large proportion of their levies, and it will be seen that the odds against us must to have been enormous. As for Gener
Jubal A. Early (search for this): chapter 3.20
nce the sneers of a man whom he out-generaled at every point and whipped, until at last by mere attrition, his thin lines were worn away, and he was compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources. Nor would it seem necessary to notice the oft-refuted statement that the South had as many men under arms as the North. General Grant's affirmation is but a bold repetition of what his Military Secretary, General Badeau, wrote in the London Standard several years ago, and to which General Early (see volume II, page 6, Southern Historical Papers) made so crushing a reply that we can account for its repetition only from our knowledge of the persistency with which Northern generals and Northern writers have endeavored to force this misrepresentation of facts into history. The census of 1860 shows that the fourteen States from which the Confederacy drew any part of its forces had a white population of only 7,946,111, of which 2,498,891 belonged to Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri
R. N. Scott (search for this): chapter 3.20
whole population were in the war. The 4,000,000 of negroes were the same as soldiers, because they did the work in the fields which white men would have to do. I believe the South had as many men under arms as the North. What defeated the Southern arms was Northern courage and skill, and this, too, with detraction all around. You cannot imagine how disheartening it was at the time, not only to officers but men. General Grant's opinion of General Lee is a matter of small moment. General Scott pronounced him I the very best soldier I ever saw in the field. General George Meade said that he was by far the ablest Confederate General which the war produced --and the overwhelming testimony of the Northern press is in the same direction, while European critics concur in giving Lee a place second to none of the generals on the other side, not a few of them ranking him as the ablest general of all history. Since such, then, is the opinion which the world holds of Robert E. Lee, h
H. R. Hunter (search for this): chapter 3.20
: Department of Washington42,124 Army of the Potomac120,380 Department of Virginia and North Carolina59,139 Department of West Virginia30,782 Middle Department5,627 Ninth army corps20,780 So that General Grant crossed the Rapidan with 141,160 men, and had as a reserve upon which he could draw an available force of 137,672--making a grand total of 278,832. His own official report shows that nearly the whole of this force was actually engaged in his and Butler's operations, or in Hunter's expedition, which latter General Lee was compelled to meet by heavy detachments from his own army. To meet this mighty host, General Lee had on the Rapidan less than 50,000 men, and in his whole Department of Northern Virginia (which included the garrison around Richmond and the troops in the Valley), his field return for the last of April, 1864, shows only 52,626 present for duty. Add all of the troops which Beauregard had in front of Butler, or which joined Lee at any time during the
1 2 3 4