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
Stonewall Jackson 345 1 Browse Search
Joseph E. Johnston 292 10 Browse Search
John L. Porter 152 4 Browse Search
United States (United States) 138 0 Browse Search
Robert E. Lee 128 0 Browse Search
Robert Edward Lee 126 20 Browse Search
John M. Brooke 122 6 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 109 1 Browse Search
U. S. Grant 101 1 Browse Search
Sherman 100 4 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 19. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 162 total hits in 62 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
January 16th (search for this): chapter 1.9
by cannoneers of that command. I have never seen any statement from Colonel Chew claiming the credit of the action of the artillery at Gregg, or that it was his battery that was entitled to the credit of the gallantry shown; but as by his silence he has accepted the verdict due a brother officer, will he not give us his account of the defence of Fort Gregg? In Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume XVIII, page 283, under heading of Chew's battery, we read as follows: The 16th of January (1865) Shoemaker's and our (Thompson-Chew's) batteries disbanded, to be called in by general orders at any time. Called in through the papers April 1, 1865; ordered to report to Captain Carter at Lynchburg. I saw the order on the 2d. This extract would go to show that Chew's (Thompson's) battery was disbanded in January, 1865, and that on the day the lines were broken and Gregg fell Colonel Chew had no command at Petersburg. William Miller Owen, Late Lieutenant-Colonel Artillery,
September 17th, 1890 AD (search for this): chapter 1.9
the Southern Historical Society Papers (XVIII) sent me several communications from General James H. Lane in reference to the actions of his brigade on different fields and and occasions, that the old question as to the defenders of Fort Gregg is again revived. The old question as to who the real defenders were will not down Mississippians, North Carolinians or Georgians; and again the credit of the artillery is given to Chew's Maryland battery. General Lane in a letter to you dated September 17, 1890, writes (Southern Historical Magazine, Volume XVIII, page 80): The true defenders at Fort Gregg were a part of Lane's North Carolina brigade, Walker's supernumerary artillerists of A. P. Hill's corps, armed as infantry, and a part of Chew's Maryland battery. Harris' brigade and a few pieces of artillery occupied Fort Alexander (Whitworth), which was to the rear of Fort Gregg and higher up the Appomattox; and that fort was evacuated, the infantry and artillery retiring to the
November 6th (search for this): chapter 1.9
rving in the trenches before Petersburg, Va., with the Washington Artillery, of New Orleans, I received an order from General Pendleton, the chief of artillery of the Army of Northern Virginia, detaching me from that command and placing me in command of Gibbes' battalion of three batteries, then in position just to the right of the crater caused by the explosion of the mine on the previous day—Major Gibbes having been severely wounded and rendered unfit for duty. Here we remained until November 6th, when we were relieved by Lieutenant-Colonel Moseley's battalion, and were ordered to a position on the Boydton plankroad, between the city and Hatcher's Run. We were assigned to do the light artillery work of A. P. Hill's corps; and several times during the winter we were moved out in snow and sleet to counteract Grant's flanking movements around our right. After Early's misfortunes in the Valley, and the return to the main army at Petersburg of the remnant of his troops under Gordon
March 25th, 1865 AD (search for this): chapter 1.9
ork of A. P. Hill's corps; and several times during the winter we were moved out in snow and sleet to counteract Grant's flanking movements around our right. After Early's misfortunes in the Valley, and the return to the main army at Petersburg of the remnant of his troops under Gordon, two of my batteries were broken up, and the guns taken to equip those of Gordon, who had left theirs at Fisher's Hill. I was then promoted to the rank of lieutenant-colonel of artillery, and assigned, March 25, 1865, to a battalion commanded by Colonel McIntosh, as second field-officer, and placed in command of the lines in the vicinity of Fort Gregg, making my headquarters in what was known as the Gregg House, within a hundred yards or so of the fort. Between Fort Gregg and the lines immediately around the city was a deep ravine with a small creek flowing through it. To utilize this ravine and water a large dam was built, which caused, by an accumulation of water in front of the line of works, a
ont of Gregg, General Lee ordered a larger work to be constructed upon the site of the pits, and when completed by the engineers with a large force of men, was occupied by Lieutenant Battles and his two guns. Extract from my diary: March 25th.—Fighting all day all along the lines. Am in command at Fort Gregg. Enemy take our picket line. Attack expected at the ravine between Battery Gregg and Battery 45. Lines retaken. March 26-28th.—Working on new fort in front of Gregg. March 29th.—Enemy moving on our right. Heavy firing in front of Petersburg—10 P. M. Pardon the egotism if I refer to the fact that the artillerymen did me the honor to call the new fort—the last one built on the lines of Petersburg—Fort Owen. I try not to give way to the vanity of using the personal pronoun in recalling events of the war, but for my present purpose I cannot well avoid it sometimes. This was the situation at daybreak on the 2d April, 1865, when Lieutenant Battles and I e
The day after the completion of the gun-pits in front of Gregg, General Lee ordered a larger work to be constructed upon the site of the pits, and when completed by the engineers with a large force of men, was occupied by Lieutenant Battles and his two guns. Extract from my diary: March 25th.—Fighting all day all along the lines. Am in command at Fort Gregg. Enemy take our picket line. Attack expected at the ravine between Battery Gregg and Battery 45. Lines retaken. March 26-28th.—Working on new fort in front of Gregg. March 29th.—Enemy moving on our right. Heavy firing in front of Petersburg—10 P. M. Pardon the egotism if I refer to the fact that the artillerymen did me the honor to call the new fort—the last one built on the lines of Petersburg—Fort Owen. I try not to give way to the vanity of using the personal pronoun in recalling events of the war, but for my present purpose I cannot well avoid it sometimes. This was the situation at daybreak on
October 12th (search for this): chapter 1.9
General Lane). These two forts—or, as they really were, simple earthworks—were to have been connected by rifle-pits, but this was never done, and the neglect was keenly felt later on, which I will mention in regular sequence. During the winter there had been a garrison in Fort Gregg of dismounted and supernumerary artillerists from the different batteries on the lines around Petersburg—the Washington Artillery, the Donaldsonville (Louisiana) Artillery, and others I do not now recall. October 12—One-half of our artillery drivers, armed with muskets, put on duty at Fort Gregg.—My Diary. These men were armed with muskets and commanded by Lieutenant Frank McElroy, third company, Washington Artillery. The day after the completion of the gun-pits in front of Gregg, General Lee ordered a larger work to be constructed upon the site of the pits, and when completed by the engineers with a large force of men, was occupied by Lieutenant Battles and his two guns. Extract from my
August 20th, 1891 AD (search for this): chapter 1.9
The artillery defenders of Fort Gregg. New Orleans, August 20, 1891. Mr. R. A. Brock, Secretary Southern Historical Society, Richmond, Va.: dear Sir: I observe in the last volume of the Southern Historical Society Papers (XVIII) sent me several communications from General James H. Lane in reference to the actions of his brigade on different fields and and occasions, that the old question as to the defenders of Fort Gregg is again revived. The old question as to who the real defenders were will not down Mississippians, North Carolinians or Georgians; and again the credit of the artillery is given to Chew's Maryland battery. General Lane in a letter to you dated September 17, 1890, writes (Southern Historical Magazine, Volume XVIII, page 80): The true defenders at Fort Gregg were a part of Lane's North Carolina brigade, Walker's supernumerary artillerists of A. P. Hill's corps, armed as infantry, and a part of Chew's Maryland battery. Harris' brigade and a few
neers of that command. I have never seen any statement from Colonel Chew claiming the credit of the action of the artillery at Gregg, or that it was his battery that was entitled to the credit of the gallantry shown; but as by his silence he has accepted the verdict due a brother officer, will he not give us his account of the defence of Fort Gregg? In Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume XVIII, page 283, under heading of Chew's battery, we read as follows: The 16th of January (1865) Shoemaker's and our (Thompson-Chew's) batteries disbanded, to be called in by general orders at any time. Called in through the papers April 1, 1865; ordered to report to Captain Carter at Lynchburg. I saw the order on the 2d. This extract would go to show that Chew's (Thompson's) battery was disbanded in January, 1865, and that on the day the lines were broken and Gregg fell Colonel Chew had no command at Petersburg. William Miller Owen, Late Lieutenant-Colonel Artillery, A. N. V
January, 1865 AD (search for this): chapter 1.9
eers of that command. I have never seen any statement from Colonel Chew claiming the credit of the action of the artillery at Gregg, or that it was his battery that was entitled to the credit of the gallantry shown; but as by his silence he has accepted the verdict due a brother officer, will he not give us his account of the defence of Fort Gregg? In Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume XVIII, page 283, under heading of Chew's battery, we read as follows: The 16th of January (1865) Shoemaker's and our (Thompson-Chew's) batteries disbanded, to be called in by general orders at any time. Called in through the papers April 1, 1865; ordered to report to Captain Carter at Lynchburg. I saw the order on the 2d. This extract would go to show that Chew's (Thompson's) battery was disbanded in January, 1865, and that on the day the lines were broken and Gregg fell Colonel Chew had no command at Petersburg. William Miller Owen, Late Lieutenant-Colonel Artillery, A. N. V
1 2 3 4 5 6 7