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 369 33 Browse Search
Stonewall Jackson 359 1 Browse Search
Frederick Grant 268 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 246 0 Browse Search
Braxton Bragg 242 8 Browse Search
Robert E. Lee 224 0 Browse Search
Jubal A. Early 221 5 Browse Search
Robert Lee 215 1 Browse Search
Robert Edward Lee 193 35 Browse Search
Sheridan 180 2 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 11. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 299 total hits in 71 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
, in my humble opinion, preposterous. Very respectfully, &c., Wm. H. Parker. Note.—The Merrimac was christened the Virginia by the Confederate authorities; but I have preferred in this article to give her the name she was best known by. Federal testimony as to the Merrimac and Monitor. Norfolk, Va., December 27, 1882. To the Editor of the Landmark: Referring to my article on the claim of the crew of the Monitor for prize money, published in your valuable paper of the 12th inst., I desire to put on record the following extracts from the report of the late Captain G. J. Van Brunt, United States Navy, who commanded the United States frigate Minnesota in the engagement of March 8th and 9th, 1862. It will be remembered that the Minnesota got aground on the 8th and remained there during the whole of the 9th. Under these circumstances it may well be imagined that Captain Van Brunt was an interested observer of the fight between the Merrimac and Monitor, and closely
February 21st (search for this): chapter 5
ly than their less fortunate comrades on the Cumberland, Congress, Minnesota and other ships in the Roads, and are therefore no more entitled to prize money. Those on the Merrimac by no means regarded the Monitor as a lion in her path. Having served on the Merrimac from the time work was first begun upon her until the night of her destruction, in justice to all concerned, and that honor may be done to whom honor is due, I simply desire the facts to be known. H. B. Littlepage. Washington, Feb. 21. The following letter from Captain W. H. Parker to the Norfolk Landmark, is also an interesting and unanswerable statement of the question: Letter from Captain Parker. Norfolk, Va., December 11, 1882. To the Editor of the Landmark The claim of the crew of the U. S. S. Monitor for prize money for the destruction of the Confederate vessel Virginia (Merrimac) has naturally called forth many letters from those engaged in the naval operations in Hampton Roads from March 8, 1862, to M
March 4th (search for this): chapter 5
, Adjutant-General. And on page 752 I find the following: Navy Department, March 13, 1862. Hon. E. M. Stanton, Secretary of War. Sir,—I have the honor to suggest that this Department can easily obstruct the channel to Norfolk so as to prevent the exit of the Merrimac, provided the army will carry the Sewell's Point batteries, in which duty the navy will give great assistance. Very respectfully, Gideon Welles. Be it remembered that the above extracts are all dated March 13th, four days after the so-called victory of the Monitor over the Merrimac! Would it not seem that a doubt rested in the minds of the writers? V. The memorial claims that the Monitor not only whipped the Merrimac on the 9th of March but that she ever after prevented her from going below Old Point; and thus saved Baltimore, Washington, and even New York!!! The answer to this is that the Merrimac could not have gone to Baltimore or Washington without lightening her so much that she would no longer h
March 8th (search for this): chapter 5
the destruction of the Confederate vessel Virginia (Merrimac) has naturally called forth many letters from those engaged in the naval operations in Hampton Roads from March 8, 1862, to May 6, 1862. I commanded the Beaufort in the battles of the 8th and 9th of March, and in the operations under Commodore Tattnal, to which I shall allude. In fact, I may say I commanded a consort of the Merrimac from the time she was put in commission until she was blown up. I therefore profess to be familiar with her history. The battle of March 8th I propose describing at some future day, in order to show more particularly what part the wooden vessels took in that memorable engagement. The battle of March 9th—that between the Monitor and the Merrimac—has been fully described by Captain Catesby Jones, her Commander, and by other of her officers. I do not propose here to repeat it; but there are some points in relation to the operations subsequent to that engagement which have either been unnot
March 9th (search for this): chapter 5
d the reach of the Virginia, and so escaped. On the morning of March 9th the Monitor hove in sight, and steamed to attack the Virginia. 1862. I commanded the Beaufort in the battles of the 8th and 9th of March, and in the operations under Commodore Tattnal, to which I shall wooden vessels took in that memorable engagement. The battle of March 9th—that between the Monitor and the Merrimac—has been fully describeI venture to submit the following: I. After the battle of the 9th of March, the Merrimac went into dock to replace the prow, or ram, which ial claims that the Monitor not only whipped the Merrimac on the 9th of March but that she ever after prevented her from going below Old Point that the Monitor, after her engagement with the Merrimac on the 9th of March, never again dared encounter her, though offered frequent opportly; (3) that the Monitor never ventured above Old Point from the 9th of March until after the destruction of the Merrimac by her own crew, sav
March 13th (search for this): chapter 5
. Thomas, Adjutant-General. And on page 752 I find the following: Navy Department, March 13, 1862. Hon. E. M. Stanton, Secretary of War. Sir,—I have the honor to suggest that this Department can easily obstruct the channel to Norfolk so as to prevent the exit of the Merrimac, provided the army will carry the Sewell's Point batteries, in which duty the navy will give great assistance. Very respectfully, Gideon Welles. Be it remembered that the above extracts are all dated March 13th, four days after the so-called victory of the Monitor over the Merrimac! Would it not seem that a doubt rested in the minds of the writers? V. The memorial claims that the Monitor not only whipped the Merrimac on the 9th of March but that she ever after prevented her from going below Old Point; and thus saved Baltimore, Washington, and even New York!!! The answer to this is that the Merrimac could not have gone to Baltimore or Washington without lightening her so much that she would no
April 11th (search for this): chapter 5
e Monitor. They were such as to make all on the Merrimac feel confident that we would either make a prize of or destroy the Monitor when we met again. On the 11th of April, all being ready for the expected fray, the Merrimac again went to Hampton Roads. The Monitor was laying at our moorings, at the mouth of the Elizabeth river,er, having gone up the day before, and was probably more than fifty miles away. She had refused the gage of battle offered her by the Merrimac daily since the 11th of April. Wherefore doth she claim prize money? In stating the above facts I do not wish to detract one iota from the just deserts of the brave officers and men oe prow, or ram, which had been lost in sinking the Cumberland, to exchange some of her guns, and to make some small repairs to her armor and machinery. On the 11th of April Commodore Tattnall, who had succeeded Commodore Buchanan in the command, went down with his entire squadron, consisting of the Merrimac, Patrick Henry, Jamesto
The Virginia the next morning returned to Norfolk, went into dock and repaired damages—put on a new steel prow, exchanged two of her guns for two others, and on May 8, more formidable than ever, again went out to attack the Federal fleet which had been reinforced by the Galena and Vanderbilt, and was bombarding the Confederate boffered no resistance. French and English men-of-war were present; the latter cheered and dipped their flags as the Jamestown passed with the prizes. On the 8th of May, when the Merrimac had returned to Norfolk for supplies, a squadron consisting of the Monitor, Naugatuck and Galena (iron-clads) and five large men-of-war, coms in this position, offering battle, and protecting the approaches to Norfolk and Richmond, and then went up to the Navy Yard to water. I think it was on the 8th day of May that Flag-officer Goldsborough took advantage of her absence to bombard Sewell's Point with a number of his vessels—the Monitor, Galena, and Naugatuck include
ntage of her absence to bombard Sewell's Point with a number of his vessels—the Monitor, Galena, and Naugatuck included—all three ironclads. When the fact was known in Norfolk, the Merrimac cast off from her moorings and steamed down to take a hand in the fight. As soon as her smoke was seen the entire fleet fled, and again took refuge below the guns of Old Point, where the Merrimac declined to pursue, for reasons satisfactory to her gallant commander. III. From this time, until the 10th of May, the Merrimac maintained the same attitude. On that day she was blown up by her commander in consequence of the evacuation of Norfolk by the Confederates. Then, and not till then, Commodore John Rodgers was sent up the James river with the Galena, Monitor, and Naugatuck, all iron-clads, to attack Drewry's Bluff or Fort Darling, and make an attempt on Richmond. IV. The above facts go to show what Flag-officer Goldsborough thought of the Merrimac, and in citing them, I wish it to be u
dore, and greatly to the relief of many others besides myself, as soon as the Merrimac came within range they seemed to conclude that Sewell's Point was not worth fighting about, and all hurried below the guns of Fortress Monroe and the Rip-Raps. The Merrimac pursued at full speed until she came well under the fire of the latter port, when she retired to her moorings at the mouth of the river. After the evacuation of Norfolk the Merrimac was taken above Craney Island and blown up on the 11th of May. The Monitor was then up James river, having gone up the day before, and was probably more than fifty miles away. She had refused the gage of battle offered her by the Merrimac daily since the 11th of April. Wherefore doth she claim prize money? In stating the above facts I do not wish to detract one iota from the just deserts of the brave officers and men of the Monitor. They did their whole duty, but not more gallantly than their less fortunate comrades on the Cumberland, Congr
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...