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) 278 0 Browse Search
Stonewall Jackson 264 2 Browse Search
Braxton Bragg 185 1 Browse Search
North Carolina (North Carolina, United States) 180 0 Browse Search
W. M. Polk 178 2 Browse Search
J. B. Hood 174 0 Browse Search
Daniel Ruggles 165 1 Browse Search
N. H. Harris 143 3 Browse Search
B. F. Cheatham 143 5 Browse Search
Jackson (Mississippi, United States) 132 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 9. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 166 total hits in 50 results.

1 2 3 4 5
Gibbon (search for this): chapter 6.43
battery, but they both say they were without organization; the former says, to be exact, There may have been good and true men from other commands who aided in the defence. General Mahone was requested, though not present, to write of the defence of the battery. Not being there, he could only repeat what he had heard. Lieutenant-Colonel Owens, Washington artillery, can't see what General Lane had to do with Gregg, as he had always understood that the fort was held by Mississippians. General Gibbon, of the Union army, was invited to express an opinion as to the composition of the command. He regretted he could give no information in regard to the garrison of the fort. It will be seen that General Harris was industrious in beating up evidence — writing to those who were not present, as well as to those of the other side. He could not accept my statement of the case, though present and having control of the whole affair. I have omitted, unintentionally, up to this point, refere
Rice (search for this): chapter 6.43
ving control of the whole affair. I have omitted, unintentionally, up to this point, reference to Brigadier-General R. L. Walker's letter. He was Chief of Artillery of Hill's corps. He writes: On the morning of the 3d of April, 1865, I was at Rice's salient until about sun up, when it was reported to me that the lines in front of Fort Gregg had been broken. He was not at Rice's salient on April 3d, 1865. He repaired at once to Battery Gregg, a distance, I should think, the way he would haRice's salient on April 3d, 1865. He repaired at once to Battery Gregg, a distance, I should think, the way he would have to go, of at least three or four miles. The lines, he says, had been broken, and directly in front of Gregg they had been held by Lane's brigade. This was not the case; they had been held at and near this battery by Thomas's brigade. He manned the fort with a section of the Washington artillery and two companies organized from the supernumerary artillerymen. I called on them to go with me to recover the line evacuated by our infantry, or at least so much thereof as had been occupied by two
Banks (search for this): chapter 6.43
bution to the Southern Historical Society, and admits that it was substantially correct. It had, in his opinion, only two mistakes: (1.) I had over-estimated the strength of his brigade, taking it to be about five hundred, when in fact it had but four hundred, one hundred having been left behind on the skirmish line near Swift Run. （2.) And I had called a certain house Barnes's house, when it should have been Newman's house. The extract made by him contained no such name as Barnes's, but. Banks's house was used, and correctly. It was four or five hundred yards beyond Battery Gregg, to the left of the plank road going from Petersburg. When Colonel Venable informed me that Harris's brigade would soon report, I replied that I knew it well, that it numbered about five hundred men. The condition of my front was such when it arrived that it was immaterial whether it had that or more than that number. As the questson at issue was as to the composition of the little garrison that held G
Snow (search for this): chapter 6.43
from four letters written by officers of Lane's brigade, and addressed to their former commander, two of these officers were of the Thirty-third and two of the Thirty-seventh North Carolina regiment. These officers were in Gregg during the fight. The General disposed of their statements very briefly, indulged freely in humor, wit and ridicule — a method practiced by himself, possibly, as a lawyer when seeking to weaken testimony, facts and logic being against him. One of the officers, Lieutenant Snow, Thirty-third North Carolina regiment, says, After ammunition was exhausted they used rocks, and for over half an hour. This rock story shows what weight this testimony is entitled to, &c., &c., says the General; the italics are his. He may not be aware of the fact, but this was not the first or only time that rocks were used in battle during the war. If he will read the official report of the battle of Second Bull Run, he will see that General A. P. Hill mentions the fact that one of
R. Lindsay Walker (search for this): chapter 6.43
army, was invited to express an opinion as to the composition of the command. He regretted he could give no information in regard to the garrison of the fort. It will be seen that General Harris was industrious in beating up evidence — writing to those who were not present, as well as to those of the other side. He could not accept my statement of the case, though present and having control of the whole affair. I have omitted, unintentionally, up to this point, reference to Brigadier-General R. L. Walker's letter. He was Chief of Artillery of Hill's corps. He writes: On the morning of the 3d of April, 1865, I was at Rice's salient until about sun up, when it was reported to me that the lines in front of Fort Gregg had been broken. He was not at Rice's salient on April 3d, 1865. He repaired at once to Battery Gregg, a distance, I should think, the way he would have to go, of at least three or four miles. The lines, he says, had been broken, and directly in front of Gregg they
S. D. Lee (search for this): chapter 6.43
e, inaccurate accounts of which I had read in history, Swinton's Army of the Potomac. biography, Cooke's Life of General Lee. and newspapers. Vicksburg Times. And as I wrote to correct, in part, the misstatements of others, it was my purposd into Whitworth for the reason he gave, and there being also more artillery in it. Again, he states he was ordered by General Lee a few minutes after the fall of Gregg to retire from Whitworth, at least he so understood it. He retired from that work by my orders. General Lee would not have sent him such an order without its passing through me, as I was in charge of that part of the field. The order reached General Harris a few minutes after the fall of Gregg, but it was dispatched to him beeceive orders of any kind or from any source, unless they came through me, or were given by the corps commander, or by General Lee in person. He had been ordered to report to me by the commanding General, and I had assigned him to the command of Wh
1877 AD (search for this): chapter 6.43
easure to have them pointed out, to the end that they be corrected, for I would regret exceedingly to find in history, errrors that could be justly charged to any delinquency on my part. I must reiterate all that contribution — found in the July (1877) number of these papers — contained, with reference to Battery Gregg. If, however, there be any mistake in what was then written, it may be as to the numbers of those that defended it. I have always believed there were about two hundred; it is polant Louisiania artillerists, that others who at this late date now come forward and claim all the honors of that occasion, should have remained utterly silent. General Harris refers to General Lane's official report, found in the January number, 1877, of the Southern Historical Society Papers, and on examining that I find it — the report — is dated April 10, 1865, eight days, and not fifteen years, after the battle. The same number has a letter addressed to myself by General Lane on this sub
June, 1867 AD (search for this): chapter 6.43
t. General Harris refers to General Lane's official report, found in the January number, 1877, of the Southern Historical Society Papers, and on examining that I find it — the report — is dated April 10, 1865, eight days, and not fifteen years, after the battle. The same number has a letter addressed to myself by General Lane on this subject, dated May 20,, 1867, a few days over two years subsequent, and the letters of the four officers of Lane's brigade, before referred to, are dated in June, 1867. And again, General Harris says, on same page: Sufficient for me to say that what has appeared heretofore has not been printed by any one connected with the brigade, or at their instance; and singularly there has been a great unanimity on the part of foe, friend and stranger in giving the credit of that defence to Harris's brigade. If we examine the February number of the Southern Historical Society Papers, referred to by General Harris as containing A soldier's Story of the war, by Na
July (search for this): chapter 6.43
ts of others, it was my purpose to be as accurate as the information I had, as to what I was relating, would permit. I had near me at the time my own report of the incidents referred to, and if I was mistaken in any details given, it would give me much pleasure to have them pointed out, to the end that they be corrected, for I would regret exceedingly to find in history, errrors that could be justly charged to any delinquency on my part. I must reiterate all that contribution — found in the July (1877) number of these papers — contained, with reference to Battery Gregg. If, however, there be any mistake in what was then written, it may be as to the numbers of those that defended it. I have always believed there were about two hundred; it is possible I may have underestimated, though they were placed there by my order and in my presence. That number of men was, I thought at the time, as many as could conveniently fire over the crest of the work. General Harris referred by name to
April 1st (search for this): chapter 6.43
re by my order and in my presence. That number of men was, I thought at the time, as many as could conveniently fire over the crest of the work. General Harris referred by name to those who had written of the attack and defence of Gregg, as well as to the time of, and periodicals in which publications were made, and adds, I shall now state a few facts from memoranda made in writing in the latter part of the year 1865 ; and then gives information as to where his brigade was the night of April 1st, and how and under what orders he reported to me the next morning near the Newman house, on the plank road. Then says, As I approached I saw that the enemy had broken his (Wilcox) lines in heavy force, and was extending in line of battle across the open fields in direction of the Southside railroad. This quotation may make the impression, whether so designed or not, that the heavy body of the enemy seen by him on his arrival was the same that had broken our lines; if he so believed, he w
1 2 3 4 5