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 descending order. Sort in ascending 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) 24 0 Browse Search
Fort Pickens (Florida, United States) 10 0 Browse Search
Ann Thomas 10 0 Browse Search
Winfield Scott 8 2 Browse Search
John S. Cook 8 0 Browse Search
Butler 8 4 Browse Search
Buchanan 7 7 Browse Search
Bell 7 1 Browse Search
William H. Lyons 7 1 Browse Search
November 18th 7 7 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: November 19, 1862., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 111 total hits in 44 results.

1 2 3 4 5
December, 1860 AD (search for this): article 14
r 13, 15, 28, and 30, the ex-President says: "There were no available troops within reach." Now, I have nowhere said that either of those forts, even with the reinforcements indicated, would have had a war garrison. Certainly not — My proposition was to put each in a condition, as I expressly said, to guard against a surprise or coup de main (an off-hand attack--one without full preparation.) That these movements of small detachments might easily have been made in November and December, 1860, and some of them as late as the following month, cannot be doubted. But the ex-President sneers at my "weak device" for saving the forts. He forgets what the gallant Anderson did, with a handful of men, in Fort Sumter, and leaves out of the account what he might have done with a like handful in Fort Moultrie, even without further augmentation of men to divide between the garrisons. Twin forts on the opposite sides of a channel not only give a cross fire on the head of an attack, but
November, 1860 AD (search for this): article 14
arnestly December 13, 15, 28, and 30, the ex-President says: "There were no available troops within reach." Now, I have nowhere said that either of those forts, even with the reinforcements indicated, would have had a war garrison. Certainly not — My proposition was to put each in a condition, as I expressly said, to guard against a surprise or coup de main (an off-hand attack--one without full preparation.) That these movements of small detachments might easily have been made in November and December, 1860, and some of them as late as the following month, cannot be doubted. But the ex-President sneers at my "weak device" for saving the forts. He forgets what the gallant Anderson did, with a handful of men, in Fort Sumter, and leaves out of the account what he might have done with a like handful in Fort Moultrie, even without further augmentation of men to divide between the garrisons. Twin forts on the opposite sides of a channel not only give a cross fire on the head of
October 29th, 1860 AD (search for this): article 14
, and without a printed document and my own official papers. Unable, in my present condition, to make an analysis of the ex-President's long reply, I avail myself of a substitute furnished by an accidental visitor, who has kindly marked the few points which he thinks may require some slight notice at my hands. 1. To account for not having garrisoned sufficiently the Southern forts named against anticipated treason and rebellion, according to my many recommendations, beginning October 29, 1860, repeated the next day, and again more earnestly December 13, 15, 28, and 30, the ex-President says: "There were no available troops within reach." Now, I have nowhere said that either of those forts, even with the reinforcements indicated, would have had a war garrison. Certainly not — My proposition was to put each in a condition, as I expressly said, to guard against a surprise or coup de main (an off-hand attack--one without full preparation.) That these movements of smal
in time to defeat the robbery. But on this point we may hear ex-Secretary Floyd himself. At Richmond he expressly claimed the honor of defeating all my plans and solicitations respecting the forts, and received his reward; it being there universally admitted that but for that victory over me there could have been no rebellion! 3. Mr. Buchanan complains that I published, without permission, January 13, 1861, my views, ad- dressed to him and the Secretary of War, October 29 and 30. 1860. But that act was caused, as I explained to him at the time, by the misrepresentations of the views in one of the earlier speeches of the same ex-Secretary after his return to Virginia 4. One of my statements, complaining of the joint countermand, sent through the Secretaries of War and Navy, to prevent the landing at Fort Pickens of Capt. Vodges's company, unless the fort should be attacked, is cited by the ex-President to proven, "singular want of memory" on my part; and a note from S
December 30th (search for this): article 14
sent condition, to make an analysis of the ex-President's long reply, I avail myself of a substitute furnished by an accidental visitor, who has kindly marked the few points which he thinks may require some slight notice at my hands. 1. To account for not having garrisoned sufficiently the Southern forts named against anticipated treason and rebellion, according to my many recommendations, beginning October 29, 1860, repeated the next day, and again more earnestly December 13, 15, 28, and 30, the ex-President says: "There were no available troops within reach." Now, I have nowhere said that either of those forts, even with the reinforcements indicated, would have had a war garrison. Certainly not — My proposition was to put each in a condition, as I expressly said, to guard against a surprise or coup de main (an off-hand attack--one without full preparation.) That these movements of small detachments might easily have been made in November and December, 1860, and some o
December 28th (search for this): article 14
n my present condition, to make an analysis of the ex-President's long reply, I avail myself of a substitute furnished by an accidental visitor, who has kindly marked the few points which he thinks may require some slight notice at my hands. 1. To account for not having garrisoned sufficiently the Southern forts named against anticipated treason and rebellion, according to my many recommendations, beginning October 29, 1860, repeated the next day, and again more earnestly December 13, 15, 28, and 30, the ex-President says: "There were no available troops within reach." Now, I have nowhere said that either of those forts, even with the reinforcements indicated, would have had a war garrison. Certainly not — My proposition was to put each in a condition, as I expressly said, to guard against a surprise or coup de main (an off-hand attack--one without full preparation.) That these movements of small detachments might easily have been made in November and December, 1860, an
December 15th (search for this): article 14
e, in my present condition, to make an analysis of the ex-President's long reply, I avail myself of a substitute furnished by an accidental visitor, who has kindly marked the few points which he thinks may require some slight notice at my hands. 1. To account for not having garrisoned sufficiently the Southern forts named against anticipated treason and rebellion, according to my many recommendations, beginning October 29, 1860, repeated the next day, and again more earnestly December 13, 15, 28, and 30, the ex-President says: "There were no available troops within reach." Now, I have nowhere said that either of those forts, even with the reinforcements indicated, would have had a war garrison. Certainly not — My proposition was to put each in a condition, as I expressly said, to guard against a surprise or coup de main (an off-hand attack--one without full preparation.) That these movements of small detachments might easily have been made in November and December, 1860
December 13th (search for this): article 14
Unable, in my present condition, to make an analysis of the ex-President's long reply, I avail myself of a substitute furnished by an accidental visitor, who has kindly marked the few points which he thinks may require some slight notice at my hands. 1. To account for not having garrisoned sufficiently the Southern forts named against anticipated treason and rebellion, according to my many recommendations, beginning October 29, 1860, repeated the next day, and again more earnestly December 13, 15, 28, and 30, the ex-President says: "There were no available troops within reach." Now, I have nowhere said that either of those forts, even with the reinforcements indicated, would have had a war garrison. Certainly not — My proposition was to put each in a condition, as I expressly said, to guard against a surprise or coup de main (an off-hand attack--one without full preparation.) That these movements of small detachments might easily have been made in November and Decem
October 30th (search for this): article 14
just in time to defeat the robbery. But on this point we may hear ex-Secretary Floyd himself. At Richmond he expressly claimed the honor of defeating all my plans and solicitations respecting the forts, and received his reward; it being there universally admitted that but for that victory over me there could have been no rebellion! 3. Mr. Buchanan complains that I published, without permission, January 13, 1861, my views, ad- dressed to him and the Secretary of War, October 29 and 30. 1860. But that act was caused, as I explained to him at the time, by the misrepresentations of the views in one of the earlier speeches of the same ex-Secretary after his return to Virginia 4. One of my statements, complaining of the joint countermand, sent through the Secretaries of War and Navy, to prevent the landing at Fort Pickens of Capt. Vodges's company, unless the fort should be attacked, is cited by the ex-President to proven, "singular want of memory" on my part; and a note f
October 29th (search for this): article 14
y Cameron) just in time to defeat the robbery. But on this point we may hear ex-Secretary Floyd himself. At Richmond he expressly claimed the honor of defeating all my plans and solicitations respecting the forts, and received his reward; it being there universally admitted that but for that victory over me there could have been no rebellion! 3. Mr. Buchanan complains that I published, without permission, January 13, 1861, my views, ad- dressed to him and the Secretary of War, October 29 and 30. 1860. But that act was caused, as I explained to him at the time, by the misrepresentations of the views in one of the earlier speeches of the same ex-Secretary after his return to Virginia 4. One of my statements, complaining of the joint countermand, sent through the Secretaries of War and Navy, to prevent the landing at Fort Pickens of Capt. Vodges's company, unless the fort should be attacked, is cited by the ex-President to proven, "singular want of memory" on my part; a
1 2 3 4 5