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
J. E. B. Stuart 612 6 Browse Search
Fitz Lee 458 4 Browse Search
Ewell 317 55 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 254 0 Browse Search
Longstreet 233 43 Browse Search
Hooker 208 20 Browse Search
A. P. Hill 206 4 Browse Search
John S. Mosby 203 7 Browse Search
Jubal A. Early 200 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 168 2 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 37. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 778 total hits in 82 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
mmunication received by General Stuart from General Lee, the order was emphatically given that as sa complete misreading, or mis-statement, of General Lee's instructions. Though General Lee and Genis army was still south of the Potomac; and General Lee's authorization contemplated that, and thatGeneral Ewell. It cannot be supposed that when Lee gave Stuart his instructions on June 22nd, he hch prematurely brought on the battle on a field Lee had not selected. * * * Colonel Mosby's book i surprise that he did not report to Ewell or to Lee before the 2nd of July, and it reflects the fee, he suggests an alternative, inconsistent with Lee's whole character and record, and dishonorable p. 166. Again, Colonel Mosby challenges General Lee's statement that he was embarrassed by the n of great service to him in the campaign. General Lee doubtless was not infallible, but his judgmch Colonel Mosby makes at the reputation of General Lee, is contained in the following paragraph: [59 more...]
r refutes every word of the statements of Gen. Longstreet, Col. Marshall, Gen. Long, Col. Waiter Ta points at issue, and with the reports of Gen. Longstreet, Gen. Ewell and Gen. Early. Now this f finally there is the improbability that General Longstreet and Colonel Taylor and Colonel Marshall 's instructions. Though General Lee and General Longstreet both suggested that Stuart should cross by him, first, that the reason given by General Longstreet for the suggestion that he should pass i. But there is a previous question. When Longstreet and Hill had crossed the Potomac, and Hookerach orchard uncovered— in the air , and that Longstreet took advantage of it and struck him a stunnimself sent orders to that effect to Hill and Longstreet on the night of the 28th. He insists also tt his plan was changed by the arrival of General Longstreet's scout about midnight of the 28th, with before him, states that General Lee and General Longstreet were responsible for Stuart's absence, a[13 more...]
u in my letter to move your forces to this point. Col. Mosby declares that this letter refutes every word of the statements of Gen. Longstreet, Col. Marshall, Gen. Long, Col. Waiter Taylor, Gen. Fitz Lee and Gen. Lee's own report in regard to the compaign in the particulars above named. He further says that Gen. Well's and Gen.smit General Lee's order to General Early at York. Then finally there is the improbability that General Longstreet and Colonel Taylor and Colonel Marshall and General Long and General Lee himself, should all have believed and stated that the news of the proximity of Hooker should have been brought by a scout on the 28th, if the f of Ewell and Early. Either Colonel Venable in writing the letter from memory made a mistake in dating it the 28th, or General Lee and General Longstreet, and General Long and Colonel Marshall and Colonel Taylor were all mistaken in the belief that the change in the plans of the campaign was due to the arrival of a scout on the n
29th, and it is then in complete harmony with Gen. Lee's report, with the statements of his staff onlong after 10 P. M., June 28th, when he found Gen. Lee in conference with the scout who brought the efore he sent his staff officer to transmit General Lee's order to General Early at York. Then finsby says: Nobody can reconcile this letter with Lee's report. Neither can anybody reconcile this ln on the 29th, it is in complete harmony with Gen. Lee's report. But even if it were granted that Linst Harrisburg; yet Colonel Mosby asserts that Lee had no such plan, though it is stated in both hcies in the Reports of the battle signed by General Lee, but it is asking too much of our credulityther by Chambersburg. [Observe that when General Lee gave General Stuart this order to take posiformation. General Fitz Lee in his life of General Lee, with these reports before him, states thatat writer has passed on Col. Marshall's work in Lee's report: It is a fine example of special plead[26 more...]
E. P. Alexander (search for this): chapter 1.17
can be no doubt that the march of Stuart's horsemen was seriously impeded by the captured wagon train which he took along. This is also the judgment of Gen. E. P. Alexander, who says, page 375, In saving a large number of wagons instead of burning them, and in delaying twelve hours to parole his prisoners instead of bringing ald appear Stuart would have marched to Gettysburg. Instead he marched to Hanover. Gen. Kilpatrick in his report says Stuart was making for Littletown. Gen. E. P. Alexander, in his important work, p. 375, says that had Gen. Stuart's column here followed the direct road via Littletown to Gettysburg, only about sixteen miles awa30th of June. But, as I have said, the question is of no importance in the argument on behalf of the accuracy of General Lee's statement in his report. Gen. E. P. Alexander is another witness in both these points. He says, p. 379, that on June 28th, General Lee still believed Hooker had not crossed the Potomac; that he issued
d that the raid was a mistake, and especially when Stuart found the Federal army to be moving northward did he commit an error of judgment in attempting to traverse its lines of communication, thus severing his connection with Lee at the crisis of the campaign. P. 156. Balancing what might be gained against what was certain to be lost for the invading army by the absence of the best half of the Cavalry with its distinguished Chief, the same judgment must be made as Jackson pronounced on Stoneman's raid six weeks earlier. P. 158. Having acquired this knowledge (that the Federal army was marching north), Stuart would certainly have done well to have marched up the right bank of the Potomac and so made sure of rejoining the army, but his character was not one to lightly abandon an enterprize which he had once undertaken. P. 160. Col. Henderson, the distinguished author of the Life of Stonewall Jackson, is of the same opinion. He says: Stuart forgot for once that to cover the
Robert E. Lee (search for this): chapter 1.17
ter, his invaluable service on the retreat from Gettysburg, are, I think, universally acknowledged. They were long ago celebrated, among others, by General Fitzhugh Lee in his description of the Gettysburg Campaign contained in his life of Gen. Robert E. Lee, pp. 265-6. It is remarkable that Col. Mosby should include Gen. Fitz. Lee among those who have thrown the blame of the Gettysburg campaign, on Stuart. For Gen. Lee says: This officer has been unjustly criticised for not being in front r front) retire from the mountains west of the Shenandoah, leaving sufficient pickets to guard the passes, and bringing everything clean along the Valley, closing upon the rear of the army. I am very respectfully and truly yours, (Signed) R. E. Lee, General. Thus, in the very last communication received by General Stuart from General Lee, the order was emphatically given that as soon as he crossed the river, he should place his command on Ewell's right and march with him towards the S
is prisoners instead of bringing along the officers and letting the men go, Stuart committed fatal blunders. And he adds, The delay caused to subsequent marches by the long wagon train and the embarrassment of protecting it, was responsible for the loss of time, which made, on the whole, a sad failure of the expedition. Col. Mosby admits (p. 191), that he might have reached York on the 30th instead of July the 1st, if he had burned the wagons. He crossed the river the night of the 27th, and York is about 80 miles from the ford. More important is the statement of General Stuart himself in his report in more than one place. Thus, on p. 695, Rebellion Records, Vol. XVII, he says, speaking of the engagement at Hanover: If my command had been well closed now, this column would have been at our mercy; but, owing to the great elongation of the column, by reason of the 200 wagons and hilly roads, Hampton was a long way behind, and Lee was not yet heard from on the left. Again on pag
t General Hooker telegraphed his resignation on the evening of June 27th. Meade was at once appointed in his place, and the news of his appointment reached Frederick in the forenoon of June 28th. Colonel Mosby thinks it impossible that the alleged scout could have carried this news so soon from Frederick to Longstreet at Chambersburg. But if by some chance the said scout learned the news in the forenoon of the 28th, is it certain he could not have travelled 55 miles before 11 P. M.? President Roosevelt could have done it; perhaps he could. I do not think his quotation from Colonel Freemantle proves that the news of Hooker's being suspended was not received by Longstreet until the 30th of June. But, as I have said, the question is of no importance in the argument on behalf of the accuracy of General Lee's statement in his report. Gen. E. P. Alexander is another witness in both these points. He says, p. 379, that on June 28th, General Lee still believed Hooker had not crossed th
Fitzhugh Lee (search for this): chapter 1.17
e long ago celebrated, among others, by General Fitzhugh Lee in his description of the Gettysburg Ca remarkable that Col. Mosby should include Gen. Fitz. Lee among those who have thrown the blame of the Gettysburg campaign, on Stuart. For Gen. Lee says: This officer has been unjustly criticised forbeing in front of Lee's army at Gettysburg, but Lee and Longstreet must be held responsible for hisMosby first impeaches the accuracy of both of Gen. Lee's Reports of the Battle of Gettysburg (of Julrtant statements made therein, viz.: 1. That Gen. Lee was in ignorance of Hooker's movements until his army approaching South Mountain; 2. That Gen. Lee then, and therefore, changed his plan and ordte east of South Mountain; 3. That it had been Lee's intention to concentrate at Harrisburg and th Federal Army. This serious impeachment of Gen. Lee's accuracy in regard to the particulars of hiaign, is largely based on a letter taken from Gen. Lee's Official Letter Book, and dated at Chambers[4 more...]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9