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
Fitzhugh Lee 417 7 Browse Search
Gettysburg (Pennsylvania, United States) 407 1 Browse Search
James Longstreet 400 4 Browse Search
Generell Ewell 398 0 Browse Search
Pickett 243 17 Browse Search
A. P. Hill 218 12 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 206 0 Browse Search
Meade 193 25 Browse Search
Edward Johnson 179 3 Browse Search
Rodes 160 10 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 4. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 568 total hits in 93 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...
August (search for this): chapter 36
a copy of which I have, goes on to say, immediately after the part given by General Longstreet: As my memory now serves me, it was General Lee's intention to attack the enemy on the second of July as early as practicable; and it is my impression that he issued orders to that effect. I inferred that such was the case from the instructions that Gen. Lee gave me on the evening of the first and very early on the morning of the second of July. See also General Long's letter to me in the August number of the Southern Historical Society Papers. The letter of Colonel Venable is as follows: University of Virginia, May 11, 1875. General James Longstreet: Dear Sir: Your letter of the 25th ultimo, with regard to Gen. Lee's battle order on th-, 1st and 2nd of July at Gettysburg, was duly received. I did not know of any order for an attack on the enemy at sunrise on the 2nd, nor can I believe any such order was issued by General Lee. About sunrise on the 2nd of July I was sent by
September (search for this): chapter 36
Gettysburg who did not enter upon the execution of his plans with that confidence and faith necessary to success, and hence, perhaps, it was not achieved. The foregoing constituted all the criticisms I had made on Gen. Longstreet's operations at Gettysburg, or on any other theatre during the war, previous to the controversy before alluded to. The views in-regard to the delay in the attack on the 2nd had been repeated more succintly in notes to my own report, which was published in the September and October numbers of the Southern Magazine for the year 1872. No where do I assert that General Lee had ordered General Longstreet to make the attack at sunrise, or at any other specific time. I merely state that he had announced to Generals Ewell, Rodes, and myself his purpose to attack at dawn on the morning of the 2nd, and that he had left us for the purpose of ordering up Longstreet's troops to begin the attack at that time. I do not know what were the specific orders given to Lo
October (search for this): chapter 36
ho did not enter upon the execution of his plans with that confidence and faith necessary to success, and hence, perhaps, it was not achieved. The foregoing constituted all the criticisms I had made on Gen. Longstreet's operations at Gettysburg, or on any other theatre during the war, previous to the controversy before alluded to. The views in-regard to the delay in the attack on the 2nd had been repeated more succintly in notes to my own report, which was published in the September and October numbers of the Southern Magazine for the year 1872. No where do I assert that General Lee had ordered General Longstreet to make the attack at sunrise, or at any other specific time. I merely state that he had announced to Generals Ewell, Rodes, and myself his purpose to attack at dawn on the morning of the 2nd, and that he had left us for the purpose of ordering up Longstreet's troops to begin the attack at that time. I do not know what were the specific orders given to Longstreet, and
November 3rd (search for this): chapter 36
ls us to postpone it for another issue. Meantime, General Longstreet's paper has been widely circulated, and it is due to fairness and a proper desire to aid the seach for truth that we should give, as we do without note or comment of our own, the following rejoinder of General Early.] After the foregoing review was in the hands of the printer, an article entitled The campaign of Gettysburg, purporting to be by General James Longstreet, appeared in the Philadelphia Weekly Times of November the 3rd, which requires some notice at my hands. That article is not from General Longstreet's own pen, as is very apparent to those who are familiar with his style of writing, and of the fact I have the assurance from a quarter that leaves no doubt on the subject. The data and material for the article, however, were furnished by him and put in form by another. Ie is therefore responsible for its statements and utterances. The excuse for the appearance of the article is stated as follows:
July 24th, 1863 AD (search for this): chapter 36
That article is not from General Longstreet's own pen, as is very apparent to those who are familiar with his style of writing, and of the fact I have the assurance from a quarter that leaves no doubt on the subject. The data and material for the article, however, were furnished by him and put in form by another. Ie is therefore responsible for its statements and utterances. The excuse for the appearance of the article is stated as follows: After giving a letter, written on the 24th of July, 1863, to his uncle, he says: I sincerely regret that I cannot still rest upon that letter. But I have been so repeatedly and so rancorously assailed by those whose intimacy with the Commanding-General in that battle gives an apparent importance to their assaults, that I feel impelled by a sense of duty to give to the public a full and comprehensive narration of the campaign from its beginning to its end; especially when I reflect that the publication of the truth cannot now, as it migh
August, 1863 AD (search for this): chapter 36
ile to some it may be a matter of surprise when I assert that there is no foundation whatever for the statement that I endorsed either General Pendleton's or anybody else's assertion that the order was given by General Lee to General Longstreet to attack at sunrise on the morning of the 2d of July at Gettysburg, those familiar with the controversy that arose out of a bitter assault by General Longstreet on myself will not be at all astonished. In my official report, dated in the month of August, 1863, after giving an account of the operations of the 1st of July, I say: Having been informed that the greater portion of the rest of our army would move up during the night, and that the enemy's position would be attacked on the right and left flanks very early next morning, I gave orders to General Hays to move his brigade, under cover of the night, from the town into the field on the left of it, where it would not be exposed to the enemy's fire, and would be in position to advance
1872 AD (search for this): chapter 36
h that confidence and faith necessary to success, and hence, perhaps, it was not achieved. The foregoing constituted all the criticisms I had made on Gen. Longstreet's operations at Gettysburg, or on any other theatre during the war, previous to the controversy before alluded to. The views in-regard to the delay in the attack on the 2nd had been repeated more succintly in notes to my own report, which was published in the September and October numbers of the Southern Magazine for the year 1872. No where do I assert that General Lee had ordered General Longstreet to make the attack at sunrise, or at any other specific time. I merely state that he had announced to Generals Ewell, Rodes, and myself his purpose to attack at dawn on the morning of the 2nd, and that he had left us for the purpose of ordering up Longstreet's troops to begin the attack at that time. I do not know what were the specific orders given to Longstreet, and in that respect I am as good a witness for him as ei
January 19th, 1872 AD (search for this): chapter 36
e low ridge on which a portion of the town is located. The attack did not begin in the morning of next day, as was expected, and in the course of the morning I rode with Gen. Ewell to examine and select a position for artillery. Here is a statement of a fact while its recollection was fresh in my memory, and it cannot surely be said that it was made for the purpose of attacking General Longstreet's war record because of political differences, or from any other motive. On the 19th of January, 1872, the anniversary of General Lee's birth, I delivered an address at Washington and Lee University, by invitation of the faculty, and in that address, after speaking of the fight on the 1st at Gettysburg, I said: General Lee had ordered the concentration of his army at Cashtown, and the battle on this day, brought on by the advance of the enemy's cavalry, was unexpected to him. When he ascertained the advantage that had been gained, he determined to press it as soon as the remainder
May 11th, 1875 AD (search for this): chapter 36
s General Lee's intention to attack the enemy on the second of July as early as practicable; and it is my impression that he issued orders to that effect. I inferred that such was the case from the instructions that Gen. Lee gave me on the evening of the first and very early on the morning of the second of July. See also General Long's letter to me in the August number of the Southern Historical Society Papers. The letter of Colonel Venable is as follows: University of Virginia, May 11, 1875. General James Longstreet: Dear Sir: Your letter of the 25th ultimo, with regard to Gen. Lee's battle order on th-, 1st and 2nd of July at Gettysburg, was duly received. I did not know of any order for an attack on the enemy at sunrise on the 2nd, nor can I believe any such order was issued by General Lee. About sunrise on the 2nd of July I was sent by General Lee to General Ewell to ask him what he thought of the advantages of an attack on the enemy from his position. (Colonel Marsh
February, 1876 AD (search for this): chapter 36
ee took it up. After he had begun to muddy the stream at as early a period as twenty days after the battle of Gettysburg, by his letter to his uncle, and when he resumed the work then begun immediately after the war by his communications to Mr. Swinton, his complaint now of being rancorously assailed by those whose intimacy with the Commanding-General in that battle gives an apparent importance to their assaults, brings to mind very forcibly the fable of the wolf and the lamb. In February, 1876, he made a bitter assault on myself, among others, in a long article published in a New Orleans paper, the gravimen of his complaint against me being the remarks about Gettysburg contained in my address which I have given. I replied to him, and I think I demonstrated beyond all question that he was responsible for the loss of the battle of Gettysburg. I did not in either of my. articles in reply to him assert that an order was given him to attack at sunrise on the 2nd. As before
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...