hide Matching Documents

The documents where this entity occurs most often are shown below. Click on a document to open it.

Document Max. Freq Min. Freq
Benson J. Lossing, Pictorial Field Book of the Civil War. Volume 2. 9 5 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 23. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 9 1 Browse Search
D. H. Hill, Jr., Confederate Military History, a library of Confederate States Military History: Volume 4, North Carolina (ed. Clement Anselm Evans) 8 0 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 18. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 8 0 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 29. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 8 0 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 1. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 6 2 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 20. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 5 1 Browse Search
Hon. J. L. M. Curry , LL.D., William Robertson Garrett , A. M. , Ph.D., Confederate Military History, a library of Confederate States Military History: Volume 1.1, Legal Justification of the South in secession, The South as a factor in the territorial expansion of the United States (ed. Clement Anselm Evans) 5 1 Browse Search
Colonel William Preston Johnston, The Life of General Albert Sidney Johnston : His Service in the Armies of the United States, the Republic of Texas, and the Confederate States. 5 3 Browse Search
Comte de Paris, History of the Civil War in America. Vol. 2. (ed. Henry Coppee , LL.D.) 4 2 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Your search returned 354 results in 103 document sections:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 4. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Defence of batteries Gregg and Whitworth, and the Evacuation of Petersburg. (search)
ing and more or less inaccurate, but none varying more widely from the truth than those of the two historians, Cooke and Swinton. The former, page 445 of his Life of Gen. Lee says: The forts, especially Gregg, made a gallant resistance. This work e Boydton plank road, and on west side of the road; 4th, the number of men in the battery was not reduced to thirty. Swinton, page 603, Army of the Potomac says: The attack was directed against Forts Gregg and Alexander, the last mentioned was cack upon Gravelly run, and the driving of Sheridan back to Dinwiddie Courthouse by Picket, was the cause, according to Mr. Swinton, of such anxiety at headquarters of the Army of the Potomac as to lead to the determination to withdraw the Second andhe line of the Boydton plank road and Gravelly run — Ord and Humphreys to hold the run. This was abandoned, according to Swinton, at the suggestion of Gen. Warren, who proposed to move towards Dinwiddie Courthouse and make a combined attack with She
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 4. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Gen. Lee's strength and losses at Gettysburg. (search)
ate strength is a statement, reported as coming from Gen. Longstreet, that Lee had at Gettysburg 67,000 bayonets, or above 70,000 of all arms. These numbers, Mr. Swinton says (see his Army of the Potomac), were given him by Longstreet, in an interview soon after the war. Now, Mr. Swinton may have misunderstood Gen. Longstreet, aMr. Swinton may have misunderstood Gen. Longstreet, and probably did, for this officer, in a letter on the batte of Gettysburg to the New Orleans Republican, dated February 16th, 1876, says that the strength of the two divisions, of Hood's and McLaws, was but 13,000 in all. These divisions each contained four brigades. The remaining division of Longstreet's corps (Pickett's) contai,352 men, which constituted the entire force for duty in the Department of Northern Virginia, at the end of May, according to the Confederate return, published by Swinton, Gen. Lee could hardly have taken over 60,000 with him. 4. Gen. Early's careful estimate. (See his report, Southern Magazine, September and October, 1872.)
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 4. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Causes of the defeat of Gen. Lee's Army at the battle of Gettysburg-opinions of leading Confederate soldiers. (search)
r the months of June anmd August, 1862, April and June, 1863, and May and September, 1864. This table was made out by Mr. Swinton, author of the History of the Army of the Potomac, from the Confederate returns in the Archive Office at Washington, and is indisputably correct, except where, in the absence of the official returns, Mr. Swinton has substituted his own estimates or conjectures for the months of June and August, 1862, and June, 1863. You will observe that, at the close of May, 1863 time. No reliance whatever is to be placed in the conjectural estimate of our strength for June of that year made by Mr. Swinton, nor in the statements of any of the writers on the Federal side as to our strength at Gettysburg. You will perceised to keep off that force, when one brigade ought to have been amply sufficient. From some communications made to Mr. Swinton by Gen. Longstreet after. the war, and contained in the book of the former, you will find that Gen. Longstreet was st
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 4. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Causes of the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg. (search)
e, with poor and exposed communications along it. I believe it was simply impossible to have made different attacks from the flanks and center of the line we occupied and over the different distances which would have to be traversed and which should be so simultaneous that the squeeze would fall on the enemy at all points at the same time. And in this connection, I think that the very position which we took and every feature of the three days conflict shows the absurdity of a story told by Swinton, who is generally very fair and above giving anecdotes suitable only for the marines. He says that some of our brigades were encouraged to the charge by being told that they were to meet only Pennsylvania militia, but on getting very near the enemy's line they recognized the bronzed features of the veterans of the Army of the Potomac, (I quote from memory) and were at once panic-struck. Such stories are not only absurb, but, in a history, are in bad taste, having a tendency to provoke re
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 4. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Supplement to General Early's Review.-reply to General Longstreet. (search)
made him such an invaluable executor of General Lee's plans. If Mr. Swinton has told the truth, in repeating in his book what is alleged to the Washington and Lee University from the fact that I had read Mr. Swinton's Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac, and discovered that his everal respects, was based on information given by the latter to Mr. Swinton after the war. I here give some extracts from Swinton's book: Swinton's book: On page 340 he says: Indeed, in entering on the campaign, General Lee expressly promised his corps commanders that'he would not assume s again General Longstreet. These uncontradicted statements by Swinton, the genuineness of which is now verified by similar statements unrk then begun immediately after the war by his communications to Mr. Swinton, his complaint now of being rancorously assailed by those whose on the morning of the 2nd, before Meade's army should all be up? Swinton says: The absence of Pickett's division on the day before made Gen
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), A review of the First two days operations at Gettysburg and a reply to General Longstreet by General Fitz. Lee. (search)
ituated must move or fight. The absurdity of Longstreet's statement is shown in admitting the presumption, General Lee knew all this; nor can we reconcile with the facts of the case General Longstreet's expression, wherein he aays that his paper in the Times is called out by the fact that he has been so repeatedly and rancorously assailed by those whose intimacy with the Commanding-General, in that battle, gives an importance to their assaults. His communications just after the war to Mr. Swinton, the historian, were in substance the same attack upon General Lee which he has repeated in this paper. It was, therefore, in him, and came out before any of the utterances now complained of were made. The official reports of Generals Ewell, Early, and Pendleton, written soon after the battle, clearly stated it was well understood and expected that General Longstreet would make the main attack early in the morning of the 2nd of July. If these reports furnished the sly under-current o
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Numerical strength of the armies at Gettysburg. (search)
total --viz., 68,352-as representing what is generally understood by that term, and under the impression that the extensions under that column embraced the officers and men present for duty. I was the more naturally led into this error, as Mr. Swinton, whose figures I had before me, had done precisely the same thing. Lieutenant-General Early having directed my attention, on the 9th instant, to the discrepancy between certain figures given by General Humphreys from the same return to the Coe figures as one will, the disparity in numerical strength is very apparent. Historical accuracy being my great aim in all that I have to say upon this subject, I hasten to correct the error into which I have inadvertently fallen along with Mr. Swinton. Strength of the army of Northern Virginia, May 31st, 1863. commands.Present for Duty.Effective Total. Enlisted Men.Officers. First Army Corps: General Staff13 Anderson's Division6,797643 McLaws' Division6,684627 Hood's Division7,030
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), General Longstreet's Second paper on Gettysburg. (search)
disagrees with it quite widely. The main point that he makes is to quote from Swinton's Army of the Potomac the following paragraph (page 310): The number of infanorce alone of over 70,000, and thus have left no margin in the estimate that Mr. Swinton ascribes to me for the other arms of the service. If General Dawes had followed Swinton's narrative closely he must have discovered that (page 365) he says: General Lee's aggregate force present for duty on the 31st of May, 1863, was 68,3 June, or the 1st of July, he estimated his infantry at 52,000 bayonets. If Mr. Swinton received any information from me upon the subject he received this, for it wch I shall refer in this connection. It is in regard to a statement made by Mr. Swinton. In his Ultimo Suspiro he gives the history of a meeting which he says took of officers on the 7th I never attended, and of course did not join in the advice it gave to General Lee. Mr. Swinton has been clearly misinformed upon this point.
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Steuart's brigade at the battle of Gettysburg.--a narrative by Rev. Randolph H. McKim, D. D., late First Lieutenant and Aide-de-camp, Confederate army. (search)
brigade, and they were delivered at the point of the bayonet. I find a similar statement in Swinton's Army of the Potomac, page 355, in a pamphlet by Dr. Jacobs, and in an article by General Howacobs says: This might have proved disastrous to us had it not occurred at so late an hour. And Swinton declares it was a position which, if held by him, would enable him to take Meade's entire line night massing troops and artillery for an effort to regain their works. During the night, says Swinton (page 356), a powerful artillery was accumulated against the point entered by the enemy. Throutheir infantry moved forward in heavy force to attack us. The troops of the Twelfth corps, says Swinton, had returned from the left, and the divisions of Williams and Geary, aided by Shaler's brigadeed to the foot of the hill. The Federal historians say we were driven from our position. Thus Swinton affirms that it was carried by a charge of Geary's division. This statement I deny as an eye-w
Robert Underwood Johnson, Clarence Clough Buell, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War. Volume 4., From the Wilderness to Cold Harbor. (search)
tained, but the enemy had suffered more severely, and General Grant was delayed in his turning movement for twenty-four hours. He however got the start in the race for the North Anna; Hancock's corps, leading off on the night of the 20th, was followed rapidly by the remainder of his army. On the morning of the 21st Ewell's corps moved from the left to the right of our line, and later on the same day it was pushed southward on the Telegraph road, closely followed by Longstreet's corps. Swinton and others state that.Longstreet moved on the night of the 20th, followed by Ewell. This is an error.--E. M. L. A. P. Hill brought up the rear that night, after a sharp brush with the Sixth Corps, which was in the act of retiring from its lines. Lee had the inside track this time, as the Telegraph road on which he moved was the direct route, while Grant had to swing round on the arc of a circle of which this was the chord. About noon on the 22d the head of our column reached the North An
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...