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
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.

... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
J. E. B. Stuart (search for this): chapter 36
ad, to guard against a flank movement apprehended in that direction. They never were in the line on the 2nd at all, but Gordon's brigade was sent for on the 2nd, Stuart's cavalry having arrived, and got back just as Hays' and Hoke's brigades were moving to the assault of Cemetery Hill. The repetition of this statement is simply aking this attack at daylight, General Ewell says: Just before the time fixed for General Johnson's advance the enemy attacked him to regain the works captured by Stuart the evening before. This is all that is given of Ewell's statement, and then follows an extract from Meade's testimony. The part of Colonel Taylor's statementt turned out, his attack was delayed till after 2 o'clock. Just before the time fixed for Johnson's advance the enemy attacked him to regain the works captured by Stuart the evening before. They were repulsed with very heavy loss, and he attacked in turn, pushing the enemy almost to the top of the mountain, when the precipitous n
Alexander Steinwehr (search for this): chapter 36
e fighting was over, except the simple order on the march to move towards Gettysburg, the previous orders being to concentrate at Cashtown. General Longstreet says, in this connection. General Hays told me ten years after the battle that he could have seized the heights without the loss of ten men. How mistaken General Hays was in making such a remark will abundantly appear from the facts I have already given in my Review, and the statement of Bates in regard to the precautions taken by Steinwehr, whose division, of 4,000 men, occupied the heights immediately confronting Hays, whose brigade was considerably less than 1,400 strong at the close of the fight. General Longstreet further says, after giving his evidence to prove that no order was given for an attack at sunrise: Having thus disproved the assertions of Messrs. Pendleton. and Early in regard to this rumored order for a sunrise attack, it appears that they are worthy of no further recognition; but it is difficult t
A. L. Long (search for this): chapter 36
were given, or of the time when they were given. That is all their testimony amounts to. But General Longstreet omits a very important and significant part of General Long's letter. That letter, 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 hat 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 11ew of no such order, but neither did they know what order was given, nor when any order was given for the attack. He omits to give a very significant part of General Long's letter, which tends to show that some order must have been given for an attack early on the morning of the 2nd. The question, therefore, rests on an issue o
arly 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 Marshall had been sent with a similar order on the night of the 1st.) Genera
e testimony of Meade and his officers, contained in the 1st volume, 2nd series, of the Congressional Report on the Conduct of the War, will satisfy any one that the bulk of the Federal army that was up was massed on the right, confronting Ewell's corps, all the forenoon of the 2nd, and that the Round Tops, the key.to the position on the enemy's left were unoccupied until Longstreet's movement began at 4 P. M. The distance which Longstreet's corps had to march from its camp of the night of the 30th, to reach the town of Gettysburg itself, could not have exceeded 15 miles, and it had the whole day of the 1st to make it, though it was somewhat delayed by Johnson's division of Ewell's corps, which got the road first, by moving more promptly it is presumed. The Fifth corps of Meade's army was 23 miles from Gettysburg at the close of the fight on the first day, and the Sixth corps was 36 miles away, yet the former reached the field on the morning of the 2nd, and the latter at 2 P. M. T
a much earlier hour than that at which it was made. Before referring to that testimony, I desire to say that the statement contained in the article in the Times, that the information of the crossing of the Potomac by the Federal army was received from a scout on the night of the 29th of June is erroneous. Gen. Longstreet's own report, as well as General Lee's detailed one, show that the information was received on the night of the 28th. If it had not been received until the night of the 29th, it would have been impossible for the order to return to reach me at York by the way of Carlisle in time for me to begin my march back early enough on the 30th to reach Gettysburg in time for the fight on the 1st of July. The fact was that I received the order on the morning of the 29th at York, with the information that the enemy had crossed the Potomac and was moving north. The statements of Colonel Taylor and Marshall, and of Gen- Long, as given by General Longstreet, that they knew
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:
having been repulsed before the rest of the force came up. It was then on the extreme right from which troops were taken, so as to leave only one brigade there. This was at Culp's Hill and on the right of it (the enemy's), where the sides of the hill were wooded and exceedingly rugged. This part of the line confronted Johnson's division, while Cemetery Hill itself was held by the First and Eleventh corps, which Butterfield sbows in his testimony numbered more than 10,000 men on the 4th of July, after all the fighting on the 2nd and 3rd. In addition, the Second corps, Hancock's, was on the left of the Eleventh corps, connecting with it. That corps had three divisions, only one of which was sent to the enemy's left during Longstreet's attack. The attack mentioned by Meade as having been made on the Eleventh corps, when troops from the Second and First corps came to its assistance, was the.attack made by my two brigades described in my Review. That attack began sooner than M
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
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
... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10