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
ZZZ 776 0 Browse Search
Robert Edward Lee 215 31 Browse Search
United States (United States) 194 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 193 5 Browse Search
Robert Lee 180 0 Browse Search
Robert E. Lee 172 0 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 164 0 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 126 0 Browse Search
Georgia (Georgia, United States) 108 0 Browse Search
Savannah (Georgia, United States) 100 8 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 17. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 37 total hits in 15 results.

1 2
Waterloo, Ala. (Alabama, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.18
m of defeat upon some unfortunate officer. Somebody blundered—this or that subordinate did not do his duty. Military annals are filled with these recriminations. If Napoleon met with a check in his mighty plans, he had no scruple in laying it to the misconduct of some lieutenant, unless, as in Russia, he could throw it upon the elements, the wintry snows and the frozen rivers—anything to relieve himself from the imputation of the want of foresight or provision for unexpected dangers. At Waterloo it was not he that failed in his strategy, but Marshal Ney that failed in the execution. In this respect General Lee was exactly his opposite. If he suffered a disaster he never sought to evade responsibility by placing it upon others. Even in the greatest reverse of his life, the defeat at Gettysburg, when he saw the famous charge of Pickett melt away under the terrible fire that swept the field, till the ranks were literally torn to pieces by shot and shell, he did not vent his despair
Russia (Russia) (search for this): chapter 1.18
ess, they are strongly tempted to throw upon others the blame of failure. Soldiers especially are jealous of their reputation, and if a commander loses a battle his first impulse is to cast the odium of defeat upon some unfortunate officer. Somebody blundered—this or that subordinate did not do his duty. Military annals are filled with these recriminations. If Napoleon met with a check in his mighty plans, he had no scruple in laying it to the misconduct of some lieutenant, unless, as in Russia, he could throw it upon the elements, the wintry snows and the frozen rivers—anything to relieve himself from the imputation of the want of foresight or provision for unexpected dangers. At Waterloo it was not he that failed in his strategy, but Marshal Ney that failed in the execution. In this respect General Lee was exactly his opposite. If he suffered a disaster he never sought to evade responsibility by placing it upon others. Even in the greatest reverse of his life, the defeat at G
George E. Pickett (search for this): chapter 1.18
ntry snows and the frozen rivers—anything to relieve himself from the imputation of the want of foresight or provision for unexpected dangers. At Waterloo it was not he that failed in his strategy, but Marshal Ney that failed in the execution. In this respect General Lee was exactly his opposite. If he suffered a disaster he never sought to evade responsibility by placing it upon others. Even in the greatest reverse of his life, the defeat at Gettysburg, when he saw the famous charge of Pickett melt away under the terrible fire that swept the field, till the ranks were literally torn to pieces by shot and shell, he did not vent his despair in rage and reproaches, but rushing to the front took the blame upon himself, saying: It is all my fault. Perhaps no incident of his life showed more the nobility of his nature. When the war was over General Lee had left to him at Lexington about the same number of years that Napoleon had at St. Helena, and if he had had the same desire to p
Henry M. Field (search for this): chapter 1.18
At Lee's tomb. Rev. Dr. Field on the character of Lee. A splendid tribute to the great Southern Leader—The judgment of history. September, 1889. Rev. Dr. Henry M. Field writes in the New York Evangelist as follows: My last letter left us in the college chapel at Lexington, looking at the recumbent statue of General Lee. While standing here, in the very presence of death, I am moved to say a few words in regard to the life that ended in this tomb, and the character of the manRev. Dr. Henry M. Field writes in the New York Evangelist as follows: My last letter left us in the college chapel at Lexington, looking at the recumbent statue of General Lee. While standing here, in the very presence of death, I am moved to say a few words in regard to the life that ended in this tomb, and the character of the man whose name is carved upon this stone. As I read history, and compare the men who have figured in the events that make history—in wars and revolutions—it seems to me that General Lee was not only a great soldier, but a great man, one of the greatest that our country has produced. After his death the college, which had hitherto borne the name of Washington, by whom it was endowed, was rechristened Washington and Lee University—a combination which suggests a comparison of the two men whose nam
George Washington (search for this): chapter 1.18
strange couples, with resemblances in some cases as marked, and yet as unexpected as are contrasts in others. Washington and Lee, though born in different centuries, were children of the same mother—Old Virginia—and had her best blood in their veins. Descended from the stock of the English cavaliers, both were born gentlemen and never could be anything else. Both were trained in the school of war, and as leaders of armies it would not be a violent assumption to rank Lee as the equal of Washington. But it is not in the two soldies, but in the two men, that the future historians will find points of resemblance. Washington was not a brilliant man; not a man of genius, such as now and then appears to dazzle mankind; but he had what was far better than genius—a combination of all the qualities that win human trust, in which intelligence is so balanced by judgment and exalted by character as to constitute a natural superiority, indieating one who is born to command, and to whom all <
Caesar (search for this): chapter 1.18
echo among those he fought against and by whom he was conquered. Ah, yes, say some who admit his greatness as a soldier and leader, if it were not for his ambition that stopped not at the ruin of his country! Such is the fatal accusation: Caesar was ambitious: If it were so, it was a grievous fault, And grievously hath Caesar answered it. But was that ambition in him which was patriotism in us? How is it that we, who were upborne for four years by a passion for our country that stoppCaesar answered it. But was that ambition in him which was patriotism in us? How is it that we, who were upborne for four years by a passion for our country that stopped at no sacrifices, cannot understand that other men of the same race and blood could be inspired with the same passion for what they looked upon as their country, and fight for it with the same heroic devotion that we fought for ours? They, as well as we, were fighting for an idea—we for union, and they for independence—a cause which was as sacred to them as ours to us. Is it that what was patriotism on the one side was only ambition on the other? No; it was not disappointed ambition that cu
William H. F. Lee (search for this): chapter 1.18
xington, looking at the recumbent statue of General Lee. While standing here, in the very presencein wars and revolutions—it seems to me that General Lee was not only a great soldier, but a great mit was endowed, was rechristened Washington and Lee University—a combination which suggests a compated as are contrasts in others. Washington and Lee, though born in different centuries, were childt failed in the execution. In this respect General Lee was exactly his opposite. If he suffered aity of his nature. When the war was over General Lee had left to him at Lexington about the samenation at his feet ready to do him honor; while Lee had to bear the reproach of the final disaster— Far different was the impression made by General Lee upon those who saw him in the freedom of prmen were more sensitive to others pain than General Lee. All who came near him perceived that withIn a few years all of the contempararies of General Lee will be dead and gone; the great soldiers t[6 more...
Robert Edward (search for this): chapter 1.18
ses into history. There we leave him to the judgment of another generation, that standing afar off may see some things more clearly than we. When the historian of future ages comes to write the history of the great republic he will give the first place to that War of the Revolution by which our country gained its independence and took its place among the nations of the earth; and the second to the late civil war, which, begun for separation, ended in a closer and consolidated Union. That was the last act in the great drama of our nation's life, in which history cannot forget the part that was borne by him whose silent form lies within this sepulchre. As I took a last look at the sarcophagus I observed that it bore no epitaph; no words of praise were carved upon the stone; only a name, Robert Edward Lee. with the two dates, born January 19, 1807; died October 12, 1870. That is all, but it is enough; all the rest may be left to the calm, eternal judgment of history.
At Lee (search for this): chapter 1.18
At Lee's tomb. Rev. Dr. Field on the character of Lee. A splendid tribute to the great Southern Leader—The judgment of history. September, 1889. Rev. Dr. Henry M. Field writes in the New York Evangelist as follows: My last letter left us in the college chapel at Lexington, looking at the recumbent statue of General Lee. While standing here, in the very presence of death, I am moved to say a few words in regard to the life that ended in this tomb, and the character of the man whose name is carved upon this stone. As I read history, and compare the men who have figured in the events that make history—in wars and revolutions—it seems to me that General Lee was not only a great soldier, but a great man, one of the greatest that our country has produced. After his death the college, which had hitherto borne the name of Washington, by whom it was endowed, was rechristened Washington and Lee University—a combination which suggests a comparison of the two men whose name
Ney (search for this): chapter 1.18
ered—this or that subordinate did not do his duty. Military annals are filled with these recriminations. If Napoleon met with a check in his mighty plans, he had no scruple in laying it to the misconduct of some lieutenant, unless, as in Russia, he could throw it upon the elements, the wintry snows and the frozen rivers—anything to relieve himself from the imputation of the want of foresight or provision for unexpected dangers. At Waterloo it was not he that failed in his strategy, but Marshal Ney that failed in the execution. In this respect General Lee was exactly his opposite. If he suffered a disaster he never sought to evade responsibility by placing it upon others. Even in the greatest reverse of his life, the defeat at Gettysburg, when he saw the famous charge of Pickett melt away under the terrible fire that swept the field, till the ranks were literally torn to pieces by shot and shell, he did not vent his despair in rage and reproaches, but rushing to the front took th
1 2