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
Braxton Bragg 958 6 Browse Search
Joseph Hooker 769 5 Browse Search
George G. Meade 728 6 Browse Search
Vicksburg (Mississippi, United States) 717 1 Browse Search
George H. Thomas 542 8 Browse Search
Chattanooga (Tennessee, United States) 485 1 Browse Search
Gettysburg (Pennsylvania, United States) 465 1 Browse Search
James Longstreet 450 6 Browse Search
Fredericksburg, Va. (Virginia, United States) 398 2 Browse Search
Fitzhugh Lee 393 5 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Robert Underwood Johnson, Clarence Clough Buell, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War. Volume 3.. Search the whole document.

Found 64 total hits in 20 results.

1 2
J. Longstreet (search for this): chapter 4.54
h should qualify him, equally with Hancock, to judge what was required to keep them in heart and courage under the Confederate cannonade at Gettysburg, and to bring them up to the final struggle, prepared in spirit to meet the fearful ordeal of Longstreet's charge. Hancock had full authority over that line of battle; he used that authority according to his own best judgment, and he beat off the enemy. That is the substance of it. Boston, January 12th, 1887. Ii. Rejoinder by Henry J. Hun the event, for the troops on General Hancock's line, where my instructions were not followed, and those on General Newton's line (on Hancock's immediate left), where they were followed, were equal in heart and courage for the fearful ordeal of Longstreet's charge. The object of my orders, however, was to spare them this ordeal altogether by breaking up the charge before it reached our lines. Had m y orders been fully carried out, I think their whole line would have been — as half of it was dr
Francis A. Walker (search for this): chapter 4.54
General Hancock and the artillery at Gettysburg. I. By Francis A. Walker, Brevet Brigadier-General, U. S. V. General Hunt, in his article on The Third day at Gettysburg [see p. 375], criticises General Hancock's conduct of his artillery, on the ground that his directing the Second Corps batteries to continue firing throughout the Confederate cannonade was both an encroachment upon his own (General Hunt's) proper authority, as chief of artillery of the Army of the Potomac, and an act of r that line of battle; he used that authority according to his own best judgment, and he beat off the enemy. That is the substance of it. Boston, January 12th, 1887. Ii. Rejoinder by Henry J. Hunt, Brevet Major-General, U. S. A. General F. A. Walker, of General Hancock's staff, comments on my expressed belief that, had my instructions for the cannonade of July 3d been carried out by Captain Hazard, commander of the artillery of the Second Corps, the Confederate assault would not have
F. A. Walker (search for this): chapter 4.54
commander of the artillery of the Second Corps, the Confederate assault would not have reached our lines, and considers this a very severe impeachment of General Hancock's conduct of his artillery. I fully appreciate and honor the motive of General Walker's courteous criticism, and his very kind references to myself, but he writes under misapprehensions which are widespread and misleading, and which, as they place me in a false position, I beg leave to explain. General Hancock's claim that judgment in the emergency suddenly presented to him when the cannonade opened. I do not know his reasons for countermanding my orders, and therefore cannot discuss them, even were I disposed to do so. As to the hypothetical case presented by General Walker, the possible effect of the enemy's cannonade on the morale of our troops, and his question, Who was the better judge, General Hunt or General Hancock? I may be permitted to reply, that a corps commander ought to be, so far as his own corps
Henry J. Hunt (search for this): chapter 4.54
I. By Francis A. Walker, Brevet Brigadier-General, U. S. V. General Hunt, in his article on The Third day at Gettysburg [see p. 375], crithe Confederate cannonade was both an encroachment upon his own (General Hunt's) proper authority, as chief of artillery of the Army of the Poaimed that he commanded the line of battle along Cemetery Ridge. General Hunt, in substance, alleges that General Hancock commanded the infant. Now, on the question thus raised, who was the better judge, General Hunt or General Hancock? Had Henry J. Hunt taken command of a brigadHenry J. Hunt taken command of a brigade of infantry in 1861, had he for nearly two years lived with the infantry, marching with them, camping among them, commanding them in numeroance of it. Boston, January 12th, 1887. Ii. Rejoinder by Henry J. Hunt, Brevet Major-General, U. S. A. General F. A. Walker, of Genorale of our troops, and his question, Who was the better judge, General Hunt or General Hancock? I may be permitted to reply, that a corps c
knows how trying and often how demoralizing it is to endure artillery fire without reply. Now, on the question thus raised, who was the better judge, General Hunt or General Hancock? Had Henry J. Hunt taken command of a brigade of infantry in 1861, had he for nearly two years lived with the infantry, marching with them, camping among them, commanding them in numerous actions, keeping close watch of their temper and spirit, observing their behavior under varying conditions and trials, I belithese regulations are essential to the management of a large army, but are only partly applicable to a two-company post, the school in which most of our officers, both of the war office and of the regiments, were trained. So in the Regulations of 1861-3, they were all condensed into one short paragraph: Staff-officers and commanders of artillery, engineers, and ordnance, report to their immediate commanders the state of the supplies and whatever concerns the service under their direction, a
cept in the names of their generals. From this rule administrative officers are specially exempted, their chiefs directing their respective departments in their own names, but subject to the control of the generals under whom they serve. All these regulations are essential to the management of a large army, but are only partly applicable to a two-company post, the school in which most of our officers, both of the war office and of the regiments, were trained. So in the Regulations of 1861-3, they were all condensed into one short paragraph: Staff-officers and commanders of artillery, engineers, and ordnance, report to their immediate commanders the state of the supplies and whatever concerns the service under their direction, and receive their orders, and communicate to them the orders they receive from their superiors in their own corps. Closely examined, this is correct, but it is obscure and misleading. It lumps together officers of the staff and of administration as
to the established principles for the government of armies. Under these, commanders of special arms issue their own orders direct to their subordinates serving with army corps, who must submit them to the corps commanders with whom they serve. The latter, being supreme on their own lines, can modify or countermand these orders, but by doing so they make themselves responsible for the result. Thus all conflicts or theories as to authority are avoided. Our Regulations (Scott's), adopted in 1821, read: The superior officer of the corps of engineers, or of the artillery, serving with one of the army corps . . . will receive the orders of the commandant thereof, to whom the said superior officer of engineers or of artillery will communicate any orders he may receive from his own particular commandant-in-chief, attached to general headquarters. Separate paragraphs provided rules for the military staff and administration,--the latter including the supply departments. Staff-offic
July 3rd, 1863 AD (search for this): chapter 4.54
en how demoralizing it is to endure artillery fire without reply. Now, on the question thus raised, who was the better judge, General Hunt or General Hancock? Had Henry J. Hunt taken command of a brigade of infantry in 1861, had he for nearly two years lived with the infantry, marching with them, camping among them, commanding them in numerous actions, keeping close watch of their temper and spirit, observing their behavior under varying conditions and trials, I believe that by the 3d of July, 1863, he would have become one of the most capable and judicious corps commanders of the army. But in so doing he would necessarily have forfeited nearly all of that special experience which combined with his high intelligence and great spirit to make him one of the best artillerists whom the history of war has known. Certainly a service almost wholly in the artillery could not yield that intimate knowledge of the temper of troops which should qualify him, equally with Hancock, to judge wh
January 12th, 1887 AD (search for this): chapter 4.54
imate knowledge of the temper of troops which should qualify him, equally with Hancock, to judge what was required to keep them in heart and courage under the Confederate cannonade at Gettysburg, and to bring them up to the final struggle, prepared in spirit to meet the fearful ordeal of Longstreet's charge. Hancock had full authority over that line of battle; he used that authority according to his own best judgment, and he beat off the enemy. That is the substance of it. Boston, January 12th, 1887. Ii. Rejoinder by Henry J. Hunt, Brevet Major-General, U. S. A. General F. A. Walker, of General Hancock's staff, comments on my expressed belief that, had my instructions for the cannonade of July 3d been carried out by Captain Hazard, commander of the artillery of the Second Corps, the Confederate assault would not have reached our lines, and considers this a very severe impeachment of General Hancock's conduct of his artillery. I fully appreciate and honor the motive of Gene
up to the final struggle, prepared in spirit to meet the fearful ordeal of Longstreet's charge. Hancock had full authority over that line of battle; he used that authority according to his own best judgment, and he beat off the enemy. That is the substance of it. Boston, January 12th, 1887. Ii. Rejoinder by Henry J. Hunt, Brevet Major-General, U. S. A. General F. A. Walker, of General Hancock's staff, comments on my expressed belief that, had my instructions for the cannonade of July 3d been carried out by Captain Hazard, commander of the artillery of the Second Corps, the Confederate assault would not have reached our lines, and considers this a very severe impeachment of General Hancock's conduct of his artillery. I fully appreciate and honor the motive of General Walker's courteous criticism, and his very kind references to myself, but he writes under misapprehensions which are widespread and misleading, and which, as they place me in a false position, I beg leave to e
1 2