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
United States (United States) 30 0 Browse Search
Grant 21 3 Browse Search
Maryland (Maryland, United States) 18 0 Browse Search
Howard L. Wright 16 0 Browse Search
John Seddon 9 1 Browse Search
Lucknow (South Carolina, United States) 8 0 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 8 0 Browse Search
Fort Morgan (Alabama, United States) 8 0 Browse Search
R. D'Orsey Ogden 8 0 Browse Search
Butler 7 1 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: August 12, 1864., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 19 total hits in 10 results.

Petersburg, Va. (Virginia, United States) (search for this): article 8
Wright's battery at Petersburg. Near Petersburg, August 9, 1864. To the Editor of the Richmond Dispatch: In the letter of your correspondent, "X," dated Petersburg, Virginia, August 2, and published in your issue of the third instant, occurs the following statement: "In my report of Saturday I intended to have made mention of the splendid manner in which the artillery firing was directed by Major W. H. Caskie, of your city. The battery of Wright, of his command, is especially deserving of honorable mention." I desire to correct the errors into which your correspondent has been misled. The only connection Major Caskie had with Wright's battery during the fight of July 30 was to deliver a message from Colonel Jones, chief of artillery, to Captain Wright.--Nor is it true that Wright's battery belongs to Major William H. Caskie's command, but to Major J. C. Cutts's battalion, who was in command of his battalion during the whole of the engagement. It might be infe
Jones (search for this): article 8
stant, occurs the following statement: "In my report of Saturday I intended to have made mention of the splendid manner in which the artillery firing was directed by Major W. H. Caskie, of your city. The battery of Wright, of his command, is especially deserving of honorable mention." I desire to correct the errors into which your correspondent has been misled. The only connection Major Caskie had with Wright's battery during the fight of July 30 was to deliver a message from Colonel Jones, chief of artillery, to Captain Wright.--Nor is it true that Wright's battery belongs to Major William H. Caskie's command, but to Major J. C. Cutts's battalion, who was in command of his battalion during the whole of the engagement. It might be inferred from the statement of your correspondent that we had a good deal of artillery other than that of Captain Wright's engaged in the fight, when in fact we had but one or two other guns engaged on that portion of our line, which the enemy h
J. C. Cutts (search for this): article 8
firing was directed by Major W. H. Caskie, of your city. The battery of Wright, of his command, is especially deserving of honorable mention." I desire to correct the errors into which your correspondent has been misled. The only connection Major Caskie had with Wright's battery during the fight of July 30 was to deliver a message from Colonel Jones, chief of artillery, to Captain Wright.--Nor is it true that Wright's battery belongs to Major William H. Caskie's command, but to Major J. C. Cutts's battalion, who was in command of his battalion during the whole of the engagement. It might be inferred from the statement of your correspondent that we had a good deal of artillery other than that of Captain Wright's engaged in the fight, when in fact we had but one or two other guns engaged on that portion of our line, which the enemy had protracted. It is true that Wright's battery richly deserved the honorable mention that is made of it, and this correction is only intended
Howard L. Wright (search for this): article 8
Wright's battery at Petersburg. Near Petersburg, August 9, 1864. To the Editor of the Richmond Dispatch: In the letter of your cg was directed by Major W. H. Caskie, of your city. The battery of Wright, of his command, is especially deserving of honorable mention." pondent has been misled. The only connection Major Caskie had with Wright's battery during the fight of July 30 was to deliver a message from Colonel Jones, chief of artillery, to Captain Wright.--Nor is it true that Wright's battery belongs to Major William H. Caskie's command, butWright's battery belongs to Major William H. Caskie's command, but to Major J. C. Cutts's battalion, who was in command of his battalion during the whole of the engagement. It might be inferred from the statpondent that we had a good deal of artillery other than that of Captain Wright's engaged in the fight, when in fact we had but one or two othen of our line, which the enemy had protracted. It is true that Wright's battery richly deserved the honorable mention that is made of it,
W. H. Caskie (search for this): article 8
respondent, "X," dated Petersburg, Virginia, August 2, and published in your issue of the third instant, occurs the following statement: "In my report of Saturday I intended to have made mention of the splendid manner in which the artillery firing was directed by Major W. H. Caskie, of your city. The battery of Wright, of his command, is especially deserving of honorable mention." I desire to correct the errors into which your correspondent has been misled. The only connection Major Caskie had with Wright's battery during the fight of July 30 was to deliver a message from Colonel Jones, chief of artillery, to Captain Wright.--Nor is it true that Wright's battery belongs to Major William H. Caskie's command, but to Major J. C. Cutts's battalion, who was in command of his battalion during the whole of the engagement. It might be inferred from the statement of your correspondent that we had a good deal of artillery other than that of Captain Wright's engaged in the fight, whe
William H. Caskie (search for this): article 8
sburg, Virginia, August 2, and published in your issue of the third instant, occurs the following statement: "In my report of Saturday I intended to have made mention of the splendid manner in which the artillery firing was directed by Major W. H. Caskie, of your city. The battery of Wright, of his command, is especially deserving of honorable mention." I desire to correct the errors into which your correspondent has been misled. The only connection Major Caskie had with Wright's battery during the fight of July 30 was to deliver a message from Colonel Jones, chief of artillery, to Captain Wright.--Nor is it true that Wright's battery belongs to Major William H. Caskie's command, but to Major J. C. Cutts's battalion, who was in command of his battalion during the whole of the engagement. It might be inferred from the statement of your correspondent that we had a good deal of artillery other than that of Captain Wright's engaged in the fight, when in fact we had but one or
August 9th, 1864 AD (search for this): article 8
Wright's battery at Petersburg. Near Petersburg, August 9, 1864. To the Editor of the Richmond Dispatch: In the letter of your correspondent, "X," dated Petersburg, Virginia, August 2, and published in your issue of the third instant, occurs the following statement: "In my report of Saturday I intended to have made mention of the splendid manner in which the artillery firing was directed by Major W. H. Caskie, of your city. The battery of Wright, of his command, is especially deserving of honorable mention." I desire to correct the errors into which your correspondent has been misled. The only connection Major Caskie had with Wright's battery during the fight of July 30 was to deliver a message from Colonel Jones, chief of artillery, to Captain Wright.--Nor is it true that Wright's battery belongs to Major William H. Caskie's command, but to Major J. C. Cutts's battalion, who was in command of his battalion during the whole of the engagement. It might be infe
3rd (search for this): article 8
Wright's battery at Petersburg. Near Petersburg, August 9, 1864. To the Editor of the Richmond Dispatch: In the letter of your correspondent, "X," dated Petersburg, Virginia, August 2, and published in your issue of the third instant, occurs the following statement: "In my report of Saturday I intended to have made mention of the splendid manner in which the artillery firing was directed by Major W. H. Caskie, of your city. The battery of Wright, of his command, is especially deserving of honorable mention." I desire to correct the errors into which your correspondent has been misled. The only connection Major Caskie had with Wright's battery during the fight of July 30 was to deliver a message from Colonel Jones, chief of artillery, to Captain Wright.--Nor is it true that Wright's battery belongs to Major William H. Caskie's command, but to Major J. C. Cutts's battalion, who was in command of his battalion during the whole of the engagement. It might be inf
July 30th (search for this): article 8
d published in your issue of the third instant, occurs the following statement: "In my report of Saturday I intended to have made mention of the splendid manner in which the artillery firing was directed by Major W. H. Caskie, of your city. The battery of Wright, of his command, is especially deserving of honorable mention." I desire to correct the errors into which your correspondent has been misled. The only connection Major Caskie had with Wright's battery during the fight of July 30 was to deliver a message from Colonel Jones, chief of artillery, to Captain Wright.--Nor is it true that Wright's battery belongs to Major William H. Caskie's command, but to Major J. C. Cutts's battalion, who was in command of his battalion during the whole of the engagement. It might be inferred from the statement of your correspondent that we had a good deal of artillery other than that of Captain Wright's engaged in the fight, when in fact we had but one or two other guns engaged on th
August 2nd (search for this): article 8
Wright's battery at Petersburg. Near Petersburg, August 9, 1864. To the Editor of the Richmond Dispatch: In the letter of your correspondent, "X," dated Petersburg, Virginia, August 2, and published in your issue of the third instant, occurs the following statement: "In my report of Saturday I intended to have made mention of the splendid manner in which the artillery firing was directed by Major W. H. Caskie, of your city. The battery of Wright, of his command, is especially deserving of honorable mention." I desire to correct the errors into which your correspondent has been misled. The only connection Major Caskie had with Wright's battery during the fight of July 30 was to deliver a message from Colonel Jones, chief of artillery, to Captain Wright.--Nor is it true that Wright's battery belongs to Major William H. Caskie's command, but to Major J. C. Cutts's battalion, who was in command of his battalion during the whole of the engagement. It might be infe