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) 216 0 Browse Search
Stonewall Jackson 170 2 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 162 8 Browse Search
John B. Gordon 156 2 Browse Search
Robert Edward Lee 146 6 Browse Search
Robert E. Lee 144 0 Browse Search
J. Cabell Early 122 0 Browse Search
Jackson (Mississippi, United States) 103 1 Browse Search
W. R. Grant 100 0 Browse Search
H. B. McClellan 90 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 32. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 338 total hits in 67 results.

... 2 3 4 5 6 7
October 19th, 1864 AD (search for this): chapter 1.41
Battle of Cedar Creek, Oct. 19, 1864. [from the Richmond, Va., times-dispatch, Nov. 6,18, 1904.] An event that has not been told about as importance demands. by Captain J. S. McNEILY, participant—his views. Tactics employed by General Early and the results that followed. With Prefatory note by U. S. Senator, J. W. Daniel. Editor of The Times-Dispatch: Sir.—I enclose for the Confederate Column an article on The Battle of Cedar Creek, October 19, 1864, by Captain J. S. McNeily, of Vicksburg, Miss. This gentleman, who now edits the Vicksburg Herald, was a participant in that battle, and is much respected by those who know him. He is t. W. Daniel. No other engagement of equal magnitude and consequence during the war has been so scantily and misleadingly treated as Cedar Creek, fought October 19, 1864. Federal chroniclers have slurred details out of which protruded this central fact: That their army of 30,000 men was forced from a strongly fortified posit
1904 AD (search for this): chapter 1.41
Battle of Cedar Creek, Oct. 19, 1864. [from the Richmond, Va., times-dispatch, Nov. 6,18, 1904.] An event that has not been told about as importance demands. by Captain J. S. McNEILY, participant—his views. Tactics employed by General Early and the results that followed. With Prefatory note by U. S. Senator, J. W. Daniel. Editor of The Times-Dispatch: Sir.—I enclose for the Confederate Column an article on The Battle of Cedar Creek, October 19, 1864, by Captain J. S. McNeily, of Vicksburg, Miss. This gentleman, who now edits the Vicksburg Herald, was a participant in that battle, and is much respected by those who know him. He is the son-in-law of Colonel Edmund Berkeley, formerly of the famous 8th Virginia Infantry, succeeding General Eppa Hunton in that honorable command. He has been a student of our battles and battlefields, and is full of a sense of justice, as well as of information and ability. I was not at Cedar Creek because disabled in a previous ba
October, 1904 AD (search for this): chapter 1.41
Lee: With less opportunity to learn all the facts than General Lee possessed, I had reached the conclusion which he expresses. With the knowledge acquired after events, it is usually easy to point out modes which would have been better than those adopted. . . . A gallant officer who was with General Early in all his movements until the battle of Winchester, in which he was wounded, has given me a very favorable account of his conduct as a commander, and certainly differs very decidedly from the correspondent of the Governor as to the estimate in which General Early is held by the troops of his command. Any calm review of Cedar Creek, of the attack from a force of Confederate infantry upon a strongly fortified position held by near twice their number, supported by a cavalry more than double our cavalry, will rather condemn General Early for not having halted his advance sooner, than for failure in effort to make it continuous. J. S. M'Neily. Vicksburg, Miss., October, 1904.
October 13th (search for this): chapter 1.41
n Livermore's Civil War Numbers and Losses, and it is here quoted: Sixth and 19th Corps effectives,20,400 Eighth Corps,4,589 Kitching's Division,1,200 —— Total infantry and artillery,26,189 Deduct regulars detached,3,080 Deduct losses October 13th,209 ——3,289 —— Actual infantry and artillery22,900 Effective cavalry,7,929 —— Total all,30,829 For palpable error Livermore's Confederate table is rejected, and the following is taken from the record: Early's effective infantry anisher's Hill losses, 505, leaving for Gordon's Division at Cedar Creek, 2,405. For Kershaw's Division there is no September report. Returns August 30th, 3,445. Losses: Humphrey's Brigade, at Berryville, Septembr 3d, 148; Bryan, 30; Connor, October 13th, at Cedar Creek Crossing, 182. These deducted leave for Kershaw 3,085. Early's total infantry and artillery at Cedar Creek, 12,780. Early's cavalry, two divisions under Lomax and Rosser, is not enumerated in the record. Battles an
August 30th (search for this): chapter 1.41
artillery22,900 Effective cavalry,7,929 —— Total all,30,829 For palpable error Livermore's Confederate table is rejected, and the following is taken from the record: Early's effective infantry and artillery, September 30th return, 6,291. From this Gordon's Division is omitted. Its September 10th return was 2,961. Deduct Winchester and Fisher's Hill losses, 505, leaving for Gordon's Division at Cedar Creek, 2,405. For Kershaw's Division there is no September report. Returns August 30th, 3,445. Losses: Humphrey's Brigade, at Berryville, Septembr 3d, 148; Bryan, 30; Connor, October 13th, at Cedar Creek Crossing, 182. These deducted leave for Kershaw 3,085. Early's total infantry and artillery at Cedar Creek, 12,780. Early's cavalry, two divisions under Lomax and Rosser, is not enumerated in the record. Battles and Leaders gives it at 2,900; or a total of 15,680. But such was the condition of our cavalry that it was almost a negligible quantity, and Lomax, with the l
September (search for this): chapter 1.41
89 —— Actual infantry and artillery22,900 Effective cavalry,7,929 —— Total all,30,829 For palpable error Livermore's Confederate table is rejected, and the following is taken from the record: Early's effective infantry and artillery, September 30th return, 6,291. From this Gordon's Division is omitted. Its September 10th return was 2,961. Deduct Winchester and Fisher's Hill losses, 505, leaving for Gordon's Division at Cedar Creek, 2,405. For Kershaw's Division there is no September report. Returns August 30th, 3,445. Losses: Humphrey's Brigade, at Berryville, Septembr 3d, 148; Bryan, 30; Connor, October 13th, at Cedar Creek Crossing, 182. These deducted leave for Kershaw 3,085. Early's total infantry and artillery at Cedar Creek, 12,780. Early's cavalry, two divisions under Lomax and Rosser, is not enumerated in the record. Battles and Leaders gives it at 2,900; or a total of 15,680. But such was the condition of our cavalry that it was almost a negligible qu
September 30th (search for this): chapter 1.41
War Numbers and Losses, and it is here quoted: Sixth and 19th Corps effectives,20,400 Eighth Corps,4,589 Kitching's Division,1,200 —— Total infantry and artillery,26,189 Deduct regulars detached,3,080 Deduct losses October 13th,209 ——3,289 —— Actual infantry and artillery22,900 Effective cavalry,7,929 —— Total all,30,829 For palpable error Livermore's Confederate table is rejected, and the following is taken from the record: Early's effective infantry and artillery, September 30th return, 6,291. From this Gordon's Division is omitted. Its September 10th return was 2,961. Deduct Winchester and Fisher's Hill losses, 505, leaving for Gordon's Division at Cedar Creek, 2,405. For Kershaw's Division there is no September report. Returns August 30th, 3,445. Losses: Humphrey's Brigade, at Berryville, Septembr 3d, 148; Bryan, 30; Connor, October 13th, at Cedar Creek Crossing, 182. These deducted leave for Kershaw 3,085. Early's total infantry and artiller
... 2 3 4 5 6 7