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) 324 0 Browse Search
Richmond (Virginia, United States) 294 28 Browse Search
Virginia (Virginia, United States) 262 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 210 2 Browse Search
Andersonville, Ga. (Georgia, United States) 177 1 Browse Search
Washington (United States) 162 2 Browse Search
Arkansas (Arkansas, United States) 116 0 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 114 0 Browse Search
Georgia (Georgia, United States) 106 0 Browse Search
William T. Sherman 105 1 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 1. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 191 total hits in 60 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Mobile, Ala. (Alabama, United States) (search for this): chapter 6.35
. Louis, after they had captured the Confederates in Camp Jackson. Nor have had to gallop away from his shattered brigade to save himself, as he tells us he did, at the First Manassas. Nor have been surprised and routed at Shiloh. Nor defeated at Chickasaw Bluff by one-tenth of his force. Nor have been repulsed by Hardee at Missionary Ridge. Nor have been driven out of the Deer Creek country. Nor have fled from Enterprise to Vicksburg on the defeat of his expedition against Mobile and Selma. Nor have made his march to the sea. Nor have said in his official reports and in his testimony before the claims commission that General Wade Hampton burned Columbia, when he knew he did not. Nor have written and published his story of all these things. The Southern army lost nothing when Sherman decided to fight against Louisiana. Had General Thomas followed his natural inclinations and adhered to his allegiance to Virginia, and accepted the commission of Colonel,
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) (search for this): chapter 6.35
lories for his own people, he accords high praise to the valor, constancy and ability of his antagonists. He highly esteems General Joseph Johnston, and makes a fair and strong exposition of his conduct and efficiency. The crowning success of the book is the contrast presented by the narrative between the characters and conduct of Sherman and Thomas after Johnston's removal from the command of the Army of Tennessee. When Hood withdrew his army from Sherman's front and turned towards Tennessee, the great raider debated whether to follow Hood or pursue his raid through Georgia and the Carolinas, thus left open to him. He did not long debate, but selecting such corps and divisions as would make up a well organized army of 65,000 men, he sent the debris to Thomas. He even dismounted Wilson's cavalry to furnish the cavalry reserved with his own wing with a better remount, and sent Wilson with his men dismounted to help Thomas to beat Hood, while he marched on his way to the sea wit
Tupelo (Mississippi, United States) (search for this): chapter 6.35
about the place. During the month of May he moved his army three times out of its works, and offered battle to Halleck, who declined it every time. On one of these occasions we struck a force under General Pope, at Farmington, which withdrew without giving serious battle. On May 30, Beauregard completed in a masterly manner his evacuation of Corinth. We marched always ready for battle, but were never attacked nor closely followed. We marched about twelve miles per day 'till we reached Tupelo, where Beauregard halted the army in order of battle, and remained unmolested 'till August, when Bragg moved his army to Chattanooga, and Price, in September, moved the Army of the West to Iuka. The author overestimates the Confederate army at Chickamauga. General Bragg stated his loss in killed and wounded at 18,000 men, and as two-fifths of his whole army, which was less than 50,000 of all arms. Bragg had no reserves, but fought his whole army, including Forest's cavalry, which, to th
Bruce Davis (search for this): chapter 6.35
lship exhibited by any Federal commander than General Thomas' defence of Nashville. We note with pleasure the dignified rebuke with which Mr. Van Horne censures the devastation of South Carolina by General Sherman. There is a wide difference between the sympathies of Chaplain Van Horne and our own regarding the war and its leading actors, and it will be excused in us to feel that he is sometimes too pronounced in his admiration of his heroes, and that occasionally, as in the cases of Mr. Davis and of General Polk, he shows too strongly his partisan feelings. But he has brought to the work he has so well accomplished an earnest purpose to write history from the most authentic documents attainable. He is generally fair in his statements of forces, though he does much overstate ours in the Battle of Chickamauga. He has adopted the plan throughout the work of having an appendix to every chapter, made up of official letters, orders and dispatches in support of the narrative
al Sherman so flippantly discusses and so often avoided, are not satisfied that he shall be the historian or the critic of their brave endeavor. They will write now, though they could never be brought to do so until the General of the Army assumed to be their historiographer. They cannot keep silent after reading their record from his reckless pen. As a military history, nothing can be more unreliable or less valuable than Sherman's book. It is almost as entertaining as the works of Mark Twain, and reminds us by its vanity of the autobiography of Beneveunto Cellini. But it is a public contribution to the history of his times. As an attempt to place his own claims to military conduct on a high ground, nothing could have been more futile and inactive, and the only consolation General Sherman should ever derive from his effort at history is, that which he seems to have attained — viz: that he has written a history which will cause other people to write the truth. And the self-
Dabney H. Maury (search for this): chapter 6.35
History of the army of the Cumberland. By Chaplain Van Horne. published by Robert Clark & Co., Cincinnati, Ohio. Review by General D. H. Maury. The History of the Army of the Cumberland follows hard upon Sherman's Memoirs of his own life and campaigns, and differs from that work as widely as the character and nature of the commander of the Army of the Cumberland differed from that of the General of the Army. The publication of General Sherman is not without its value of a procreative schapter, made up of official letters, orders and dispatches in support of the narrative contained in the chapter, and he generally adopts the statement of our generals as correct regarding the numbers of their forces. On the whole we heartily approve and commend this book, and if all the generals had historians like Chaplain Van Horne it would be better for their fame, and greatly facilitate the labors of the future historian of the war. Dabney H. Maury, Major-General late Confederate Army.
Henry Wilson (search for this): chapter 6.35
od or pursue his raid through Georgia and the Carolinas, thus left open to him. He did not long debate, but selecting such corps and divisions as would make up a well organized army of 65,000 men, he sent the debris to Thomas. He even dismounted Wilson's cavalry to furnish the cavalry reserved with his own wing with a better remount, and sent Wilson with his men dismounted to help Thomas to beat Hood, while he marched on his way to the sea with none to make him afraid. General Lee once said Wilson with his men dismounted to help Thomas to beat Hood, while he marched on his way to the sea with none to make him afraid. General Lee once said of Sherman's march to the sea: There was nothing to oppose him, and the only military problem to be solved was a simple calculation as to whether his army could live on the country by taking all the people had. It was well for Sherman and for his government that the general with whom he dealt so hardly was not of a temper to be apalled by the dangers of the position in which Sherman had thus placed him. It is charitable to believe that in making these dispositions for his own movements and
Abraham Lincoln (search for this): chapter 6.35
he principles which underlay the revolution with which the author opens his subject might have been judiciously omitted, for Chaplain Van Horne does not seem to know that in the South the leaders were behind the people in their purposes and feelings. The vote for secession was carried throughout the South by the greatest popular majority that ever endorsed any national policy. In Virginia, the leaders of the people had been opposed to the secession of the State; but when April 14, 1861, Mr. Lincoln called for troops to coerce the seceded States, the Virginia Convention, on the 17th of April, unanimously passed the ordinance of secession, and when it was referred back to the people it was ratified by a majority of 131,000 votes! Less than 1,000 votes were cast against it. The book is an excellent compilation of the documents within reach of the author. He has bestowed upon it the time and care such a work demands, and has been aided and sustained by the cordial co-operation of m
Virginian Thomas (search for this): chapter 6.35
line of his book, so will the admirers of General Thomas find in this history of the Army of the Cu and even snatched victory from defeat. General Thomas, like General Sherman, was indecisive as tdecided to fight against Louisiana. Had General Thomas followed his natural inclinations and adhever deplore that a son so brave and so able as Thomas was did not fight by their side. He has nownal untruth, the personal contrast between General Thomas and the General of the Army is completed. cranz fought stubbornly, as he always did, and Thomas no where more signally evinced his best qualittion to press the beaten army, especially when Thomas still presented a stubborn front and covered tween the characters and conduct of Sherman and Thomas after Johnston's removal from the command of trder was, fortunately for Halleck, suspended. Thomas would not attack 'till he was ready. His victe justify Halleck's complaints on this score. Thomas' own letter, replying to these indiscreet stri[9 more...]
U. S. Grant (search for this): chapter 6.35
e truth. He discusses the Battle of Shiloh in a frankness conformable with the general spirit of his book. But he is mistaken in thinking General Bragg's lines were repulsed late in the day of the 6th, when it was only necessary to press back Grant's left flank one-eighth of a mile. His own record shows that after a day of unchecked success the Confederate army, having surprised and routed Sherman at 7 o'clock in the morning, had constantly pressed on towards Pittsburg landing until thredisaster of the day and establish the Federal lines in the positions from which they had been driven. The author pays a handsome and deserved compliment to General Beauregard for his conduct of the battle after General Buell had reinforced General Grant. But he falls into some mistakes as to the conduct of the Confederate army after the Battle of Shiloh. April 7, General Beauregard took position at Corinth, and threw up earth works about the place. During the month of May he moved his army
1 2 3 4 5 6