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
United States (United States) 296 0 Browse Search
Johnson Hagood 190 10 Browse Search
G. T. Beauregard 164 4 Browse Search
John Brown 138 2 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 110 0 Browse Search
Grant 107 25 Browse Search
Robert E. Lee 95 25 Browse Search
B. F. Cheatham 93 3 Browse Search
Braxton Bragg 87 1 Browse Search
Ohio (Ohio, United States) 80 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 16. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 443 total hits in 137 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...
May (search for this): chapter 1.34
Beauregard, while calling so promptly for those due from their own subordinates—an avoidance of duty in which, I take this immediate occasion to say, they were favored by my illness and absence from the duties of my office from about the middle of May up to the very eve of Beauregard's separation from the army. But for this casualty I am very sure the reports in question would have been elicited before the close of May, and I dare to say, moreover, they would have reached my office—at least thMay, and I dare to say, moreover, they would have reached my office—at least those of Bragg and Hardee—essentially free from, or not stuffed and effusing with that suggested and directed blame of their commanding general, which have made the reports subsequently transmitted without even approximate similars in the whole round of official military literature. How little prepared, after the surrender of Prentiss, three of his regiments, the Twelfth, Thirteenth and Twenty-second Tennessee regiments of Stewart's division, were to vigorously assail the enemy in the manner so
1862 AD (search for this): chapter 1.34
Battle of Shiloh: refutation of the so-called lost opportunity, on the evening of April 6th, 1862. General Thomas Jordan, Adjutant—General of the Confederate Forces that were Engaged. Although I have shown in a former article, published in the New Orleans Picayune, that under the rules which would govern in the courts of justice, the report of General Bragg would not be taken as evidence of anything, waiving the illegitimate furtive nature attached to the whole of it, I propose to show that even had it been actually written when and where pretended on its face, and had it ever reached me and subsequently in due official course been handed to General Beauregard, all the same the sub-reports of all the brigade and regimental commanders of his corps concurrently contradict the statement of that report, which in effect alleges that he had set on foot a hostile movement against the last Federal position of the 6th of April, that had every prospect of success, but which was stopped
January, 1862 AD (search for this): chapter 1.34
word that I have omitted which can be said to run counter to the unbroken chain of documentary proof which I have adduced. Into the discussion of the further matters relating to General A. S. Johnston's connection with the campaign and battle of Shiloh, asserted and reasserted by his son (Colonel Johnston) so persistently, it is not my purpose to follow him, unless made unavoidable hereafter. I will say, however, that it were very easy to demonstrate that his story—that in the month of January, 1862, General A. S. Johnston had in his possession a map with Shiloh church marked upon it by the engineers, and had pointed out to Colonel Bowen that there the great battle of the southwest will be fought—is not one whit more historical or less imaginary than the ancient fable of the voyage of Arion to Parnassus on the back of a music-loving dolphin. I may also say that Colonel Johnston seems to aim to present his father as exercising a brawny physical power and influence upon the battle of
February, 1862 AD (search for this): chapter 1.34
the South whom I could name as capable of deciding according to the clear documentary evidence. But let the issue be made so broad as to embrace several subjects which have not been touched upon in my papers. For example to begin with, Was the military situation on the part of the Confederates in the department under the command of General A. S. Johnston such as to make the loss of Fort Donelson an inevitable result? Or, in other words, was it not in the power of General Johnston, in February, 1862, with the resources of men and transportation at his position, immediately after General Grant invested Fort Henry, to have readily concentrated upon and overcome him with a decisively superior force? Or, in fact, did not the failure on the part of General Johnston to essay such an enterprise, as early as the 7th of February, 1862, cause the loss of Fort Donelson from the outset with the ten thousand troops sent thither after the capture of Fort Henry, and thus make the immediate abando
February 7th, 1862 AD (search for this): chapter 1.34
nd of General A. S. Johnston such as to make the loss of Fort Donelson an inevitable result? Or, in other words, was it not in the power of General Johnston, in February, 1862, with the resources of men and transportation at his position, immediately after General Grant invested Fort Henry, to have readily concentrated upon and overcome him with a decisively superior force? Or, in fact, did not the failure on the part of General Johnston to essay such an enterprise, as early as the 7th of February, 1862, cause the loss of Fort Donelson from the outset with the ten thousand troops sent thither after the capture of Fort Henry, and thus make the immediate abandonment of Bowling Green and Columbus absolutely a necessary consequence, with the early abandonment also of Nashville and Middle Tennessee? Let the issue also embrace the question, whether there was not such tardiness and hesitancy on the part of the Confederate movement from Murfreesboro to Corinth, that the junction of Johnson'
March, 1862 AD (search for this): chapter 1.34
h the ten thousand troops sent thither after the capture of Fort Henry, and thus make the immediate abandonment of Bowling Green and Columbus absolutely a necessary consequence, with the early abandonment also of Nashville and Middle Tennessee? Let the issue also embrace the question, whether there was not such tardiness and hesitancy on the part of the Confederate movement from Murfreesboro to Corinth, that the junction of Johnson's forces with those of Beauregard at that point, late in March, 1862, was a sheer casualty, due to the want of enterprise on the part of the Federal general to so interpose the forces at his disposition between the divided fragments of his adversary as to make their concentration at Corinth an impossibility? That is to say, was it not in the power of the Confederate commander-in-chief to have assembled his forces a week earlier than he did, and therefore been in the condition to fight General Grant at latest on the first instead of the 6th of April, 1862?
April 6th, 1862 AD (search for this): chapter 1.34
f Fort Henry, and thus make the immediate abandonment of Bowling Green and Columbus absolutely a necessary consequence, with the early abandonment also of Nashville and Middle Tennessee? Let the issue also embrace the question, whether there was not such tardiness and hesitancy on the part of the Confederate movement from Murfreesboro to Corinth, that the junction of Johnson's forces with those of Beauregard at that point, late in March, 1862, was a sheer casualty, due to the want of enterprise on the part of the Federal general to so interpose the forces at his disposition between the divided fragments of his adversary as to make their concentration at Corinth an impossibility? That is to say, was it not in the power of the Confederate commander-in-chief to have assembled his forces a week earlier than he did, and therefore been in the condition to fight General Grant at latest on the first instead of the 6th of April, 1862? Thomas Jordan, 61 Broadway, New York, September 1, 1887.
April 14th, 1862 AD (search for this): chapter 1.34
eneral Bragg either to advance or to prepare to advance, all this time, or that any advance or assault was made. But he goes on to say: Being near night, I fell back, by an order from General Bragg, to the first encampment in the tents furthest from the river, where we stayed all night. * * * Major-General Hardee and General Withers came to our encampment where they remained all night. — (Ibid, page 622). Dunlap, commanding the Ninth Arkansas of the same brigade, thus reports, April 14th, 1862: Continuing to follow the enemy until the position became of extreme peril, placed, as we were, between two batteries, both pouring destructive volleys of grape and cannister into our ranks. In this position we received orders to fall back to a safe position and await further orders. By this time night came on. Colonel Martin withdrew, * * this closed the fighting of the 6th of April, he stated, adding that the loss of the regiment was about one hundred killed and wounded.
April 15th, 1862 AD (search for this): chapter 1.34
the road, which was done as soon as the line could be formed, probably three or four minutes, Generals Buell and Nelson, assisting. The Thirty-Sixth Indiana, and part of the Sixth Ohio volunteer infantry, were placed in position behind the crest of the hill, near the battery, the left protected by a deep ravine parallel to the river and having water in it. General Buell himself, who had reached Pittsburg Landing ahead of Ammen, with his Chief of Staff, Colonel Fry, reports on the 15th of April, 1862: It (Ammen's brigade) was immediately posted to meet the attack at that point and, with a battery of artillery which happened to be on the ground and was brought into action, opened fire upon the enemy and repulsed him. The action of the gunboats also contributed very much to that result. The attack upon that point was not renewed, night having come on, and the fire ceased on both sides. —（Ibid, C. 299). The right about three hundred yards from the landing. General Buell
April 19th, 1862 AD (search for this): chapter 1.34
ivision) states, that having been ordered to charge the enemy with his regiment to the river, after passing through the deep ravine below the lowest camp, the regiment was halted (by whose orders he does not report) within four hundred yards of the river and remained ready to move forward for half an hour, when night came on and we were ordered to the rear. (Rebellion Records, Volume X, Part I, page 559). Colonel John C. Moore, commanding Second regiment of Texas infantry, under date of April 19th, 1862, reports to General Withers: After advancing about half a mile we came to a deep ravine and formed ourselves in front of a heavy battery of the enemy at the distance of four hundred or five hundred yards. They opened on us a fire of shot and shell which did but little damage, as the balls generally passed over our heads and across the ravine. After having kept up this fire a considerable time, they then changed the position of some of the guns, placing them so as to bring us a ra
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...