hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity (current method)
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position
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 155 total hits in 40 results.

1 2 3 4
April, 1873 AD (search for this): chapter 5.27
and yet included in the Department of Northern Virginia. 2. The Confederate army, at the time mentioned, consisted of three corps of infantry, besides artillery and cavalry. The army was divided into these three corps in May, and Longstreet, Ewell and Hill commanded them. They did not differ much in strength. Each corps contained three divisions. General Early commanded one of the divisions of Ewell's corps. In his report of this campaign, published in the Historical Magazine for April, 1873, he gives the field return of his division on June 20th. From it we have-- Officers present for duty514 Enlisted men present for duty5,124   Total5,638 He says: My division, notwithstanding the absence of three small regiments, was fully an average one in our army. This report agrees with my own recollection. My position in the army at that time made it my duty to know the strength of Ewell's corps. It contained on the 1st of June, just before we set out on the campaign fif
June, 1873 AD (search for this): chapter 5.27
nly 300 (!), a result absurd on its face. In regard to the Confederate losses, we have fuller data than as to their strength. The reports of Generals Longstreet and Ewell have both been published (though Dr. Bates seems unaware of it, as well as of the publication of General Lee's final report of the battle--Southern Magazine, August, 1872). The official report of losses by Longstreet (Southern Magazine, April, 1874) is — total killed, wounded and missing (including loss in artillery attached to the corps), 7,515, General Ewell reports his total losses while in Pennsylvania (Southern Magazine, June, 1873) at 6,094 aggregate. General Hill's report has not been published (so far as I know), but as his corps did not suffer more than the others, the average of the above, or 6,800 men, would be a full allowance. The entire Confederate loss did not exceed 21,000 men. There are many other points deserving notice, but this letter is already too long. Very truly, yours, W. Allan.
April, 1874 AD (search for this): chapter 5.27
es' estimate would require them to have been over 460 strong (!) and the Federal only 300 (!), a result absurd on its face. In regard to the Confederate losses, we have fuller data than as to their strength. The reports of Generals Longstreet and Ewell have both been published (though Dr. Bates seems unaware of it, as well as of the publication of General Lee's final report of the battle--Southern Magazine, August, 1872). The official report of losses by Longstreet (Southern Magazine, April, 1874) is — total killed, wounded and missing (including loss in artillery attached to the corps), 7,515, General Ewell reports his total losses while in Pennsylvania (Southern Magazine, June, 1873) at 6,094 aggregate. General Hill's report has not been published (so far as I know), but as his corps did not suffer more than the others, the average of the above, or 6,800 men, would be a full allowance. The entire Confederate loss did not exceed 21,000 men. There are many other points deserv
April 1st, 1876 AD (search for this): chapter 5.27
of the battle of Gettysburg, we intimated a purpose of returning to the subject again. The following letter from Colonel Wm. Allan, late Chief of Ordnance of Second Corps, Army of Northern Virginia, spares us any further trouble. We happen to know that Colonel Allan is thoroughly familiar with the history of the Army of Northern Virginia, and that some of the most valuable military criticisms that have appeared in late years, have been from his facile pen.] McDonough school, Maryland, April 1, 1876. Rev. J. W. Jones, Secretary Southern Historical Society: It is to be regretted that at this time, more than ten years after the close of the war, the feelings that were natural enough during its progress have still sufficient force to discolor the facts of history. The book of Dr. Bates, recently published, possesses merit as a clear and readable account of the battle of Gettysburg, and shows labor and research in its compilation, but is wide of the truth in many of its statements.
William Allan (search for this): chapter 5.27
. [In a brief notice of Bates' history of the battle of Gettysburg, we intimated a purpose of returning to the subject again. The following letter from Colonel Wm. Allan, late Chief of Ordnance of Second Corps, Army of Northern Virginia, spares us any further trouble. We happen to know that Colonel Allan is thoroughly familiColonel Allan is thoroughly familiar with the history of the Army of Northern Virginia, and that some of the most valuable military criticisms that have appeared in late years, have been from his facile pen.] McDonough school, Maryland, April 1, 1876. Rev. J. W. Jones, Secretary Southern Historical Society: It is to be regretted that at this time, more than ten been published (so far as I know), but as his corps did not suffer more than the others, the average of the above, or 6,800 men, would be a full allowance. The entire Confederate loss did not exceed 21,000 men. There are many other points deserving notice, but this letter is already too long. Very truly, yours, W. Allan.
Samuel P. Bates (search for this): chapter 5.27
Review of Bates' battle of Gettysburg. [In a brief notice of Bates' history of the battle ofBates' history of the battle of Gettysburg, we intimated a purpose of returning to the subject again. The following letter from C discolor the facts of history. The book of Dr. Bates, recently published, possesses merit as a clst be supposed to be substantially correct. Dr. Bates assumes, in the face of General Meade's stat00 infantry to his army. Add the cavalry at Dr. Bates' estimate of 12,000, and we have nearly 100,and Meade. General Hooker says, according to Dr. Bates: With regard to the enemy's force, I had rel and is certainly erroneous. The attempt of Dr. Bates to reconcile the estimate of Hooker and Mead under these circumstances was, according to Dr. Bates, able to thinks the Confederate commander lo artillery and cavalry is liberal. 3. But Dr. Bates has in his own book the refutation of his est and Ewell have both been published (though Dr. Bates seems unaware of it, as well as of the publi[5 more...]
Butterfield (search for this): chapter 5.27
eneral Doubleday of the strength of the First Corps on July 1st (which shows a decrease of about 25 per cent. from General Butterfield's return of the same corps on June 10th), proceeds to reduce the total strength of the Federal army to 72,000. The infantry corps subsequently engaged in the battle numbered, according to General Butterfield, on June 10th 76,255. Between that date and the battle, he states, new commands joined General Meade, which added 9,500 infantry to his army. Add the ca6. The estimates of the Federal infantry corps commanders on July 4th, the day after the battle, give 51,514 (see General Butterfield's testimony) as the effective force of infantry then remaining. This taken from say 85,000 infantry, the force pr of Longstreet, leads to an amusing calculation. Having ciphered the Federal army from 95,000 to 72,000, by comparing Butterfield's report of Reynolds' corps for June 10th, and Doubleday's estimate of it on July 1st, he applies the same arithmetic
Doubleday (search for this): chapter 5.27
ly on the field must be supposed to be substantially correct. Dr. Bates assumes, in the face of General Meade's statement, that the above numbers were those borne on the rolls, and not those in the field, and on the basis of an estimate of General Doubleday of the strength of the First Corps on July 1st (which shows a decrease of about 25 per cent. from General Butterfield's return of the same corps on June 10th), proceeds to reduce the total strength of the Federal army to 72,000. The infantoncile the estimate of Hooker and Meade, with the alleged statement of Longstreet, leads to an amusing calculation. Having ciphered the Federal army from 95,000 to 72,000, by comparing Butterfield's report of Reynolds' corps for June 10th, and Doubleday's estimate of it on July 1st, he applies the same arithmetic to Lee's army, and states that we may therefore fairly conclude that Lee crossed the Potomac with something over 100,000 men, and actually had upon the field in the neighborhood of 76
J. A. Early (search for this): chapter 5.27
he State. It would be a very moderate estimate to allow 8,000 or 8,500 men for the number of troops not with the main army of invasion, and yet included in the Department of Northern Virginia. 2. The Confederate army, at the time mentioned, consisted of three corps of infantry, besides artillery and cavalry. The army was divided into these three corps in May, and Longstreet, Ewell and Hill commanded them. They did not differ much in strength. Each corps contained three divisions. General Early commanded one of the divisions of Ewell's corps. In his report of this campaign, published in the Historical Magazine for April, 1873, he gives the field return of his division on June 20th. From it we have-- Officers present for duty514 Enlisted men present for duty5,124   Total5,638 He says: My division, notwithstanding the absence of three small regiments, was fully an average one in our army. This report agrees with my own recollection. My position in the army at that
Ewell (search for this): chapter 5.27
ides artillery and cavalry. The army was divided into these three corps in May, and Longstreet, Ewell and Hill commanded them. They did not differ much in strength. Each corps contained three divisions. General Early commanded one of the divisions of Ewell's corps. In his report of this campaign, published in the Historical Magazine for April, 1873, he gives the field return of his division own recollection. My position in the army at that time made it my duty to know the strength of Ewell's corps. It contained on the 1st of June, just before we set out on the campaign fifteen thousae losses, we have fuller data than as to their strength. The reports of Generals Longstreet and Ewell have both been published (though Dr. Bates seems unaware of it, as well as of the publication ofotal killed, wounded and missing (including loss in artillery attached to the corps), 7,515, General Ewell reports his total losses while in Pennsylvania (Southern Magazine, June, 1873) at 6,094 aggr
1 2 3 4