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
United States (United States) 216 0 Browse Search
Stonewall Jackson 170 2 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 162 8 Browse Search
John B. Gordon 156 2 Browse Search
Robert Edward Lee 146 6 Browse Search
Robert E. Lee 144 0 Browse Search
J. Cabell Early 122 0 Browse Search
Jackson (Mississippi, United States) 103 1 Browse Search
W. R. Grant 100 0 Browse Search
H. B. McClellan 90 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 32. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 338 total hits in 67 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Lomax (search for this): chapter 1.41
rly's total infantry and artillery at Cedar Creek, 12,780. Early's cavalry, two divisions under Lomax and Rosser, is not enumerated in the record. Battles and Leaders gives it at 2,900; or a total 15,680. But such was the condition of our cavalry that it was almost a negligible quantity, and Lomax, with the largest division, never got under fire. Judgment is claimed against General Early os and frequent defeat fighting against vast odds. In his report of a previous engagement Major-General Lomax says: I lost four pieces of artillery on account of the miserable condition of the horimed by the confederate commander that we were threatened with cavalry on our right, whereas General Lomax was on that flank. This passage is transparently extravagant. Under any circumstances foot soldiers can, in an open country, withdraw and escape from foot soldiers. As to Lomax's cavalry, it was miles away, on the Front Royal-Wincester pike, and engaged with another Federal cavalry div
Rosser (search for this): chapter 1.41
at Berryville, Septembr 3d, 148; Bryan, 30; Connor, October 13th, at Cedar Creek Crossing, 182. These deducted leave for Kershaw 3,085. Early's total infantry and artillery at Cedar Creek, 12,780. Early's cavalry, two divisions under Lomax and Rosser, is not enumerated in the record. Battles and Leaders gives it at 2,900; or a total of 15,680. But such was the condition of our cavalry that it was almost a negligible quantity, and Lomax, with the largest division, never got under fire. Jurdon's) left. How that occurred is thus told in General Custer's report: About II A. M. I was directed to transfer my command again to the right flank and take charge of affairs. . . There being no connection between the left of the enemy and Rosser's cavalry, I succeeded in moving a portion of my command to a position almost in rear of the enemy. . . . I caused my battery to open and at the same time charged with three regiments. The effect was surprising. . . It was apparent that the wave
U. S. Senator (search for this): chapter 1.41
Battle of Cedar Creek, Oct. 19, 1864. [from the Richmond, Va., times-dispatch, Nov. 6,18, 1904.] An event that has not been told about as importance demands. by Captain J. S. McNEILY, participant—his views. Tactics employed by General Early and the results that followed. With Prefatory note by U. S. Senator, J. W. Daniel. Editor of The Times-Dispatch: Sir.—I enclose for the Confederate Column an article on The Battle of Cedar Creek, October 19, 1864, by Captain J. S. McNeily, of Vicksburg, Miss. This gentleman, who now edits the Vicksburg Herald, was a participant in that battle, and is much respected by those who know him. He is the son-in-law of Colonel Edmund Berkeley, formerly of the famous 8th Virginia Infantry, succeeding General Eppa Hunton in that honorable command. He has been a student of our battles and battlefields, and is full of a sense of justice, as well as of information and ability. I was not at Cedar Creek because disabled in a previous b
Wharton (search for this): chapter 1.41
sted to Generals Gordon and Kershaw, who led their commands upon separate points, for simultaneous assault, and acted, for the time, independently of each other and General Early; who, after seeing Kershaw's assault launched, posted himself with Wharton's division and the artillery at the pike crossing, until it should be uncovered by Kershaw. Conducted by his division commanders the attack on the Federal left, Crook's Eighth corps, was brilliantly successful. It was so continued until the adt. To make this clear, the report of Ramseur's Division, by General Grimes, is here quoted from: Grimes' Brigade, ordered forward, charged most gallantly, but being greatly overlapped on both flanks, was forced to fall back. Smith's Brigade of Wharton's Division charged the same wooded hill, but was likewise repulsed. Wofford, of Kershaw, was then sent to help make the advance continuous on our right. But, after it came up, this report reads, it was not thought advisable to move it against
George E. Pegram (search for this): chapter 1.41
neral Gordon's memory is in conflct with all the record of the facts. The reports from Kershaw's and Ramseur's Divisions narrate how every man was concentrated on the front, and all possible energy of pursuit was had until the halt toward noon. Pegram and Wofford were likewise engaged. From personal experence of a neverto-be-forgotten kind, I can say that no such orders reached Humphreys' Brigade skirmish line, which, closely supported by the battle line, pushed ahead as well as it could, ander did men fight better. The line advanced nearly to Middletown. This advance was intended more as an offensive defense. The enemy withdrew from the open country. Sheltered by the woods and houses in our front, Kershaw (Wofford's Brigade) and Pegram continued a sharp skirmish, varied by attacks on both sides. Here we read a complete explanation of why Early's advance halted. The centre, which had its own troubles besides, could not go forward with the right-checked by Sheridan's 7,000 mo
Livermore (search for this): chapter 1.41
ave probably been handled in partizan spirit by both sides. But the record affords all the data requisite for approximate accuracy, which is my aim. The statement of the Union strength has been carefully, and presumably faithfully, compiled in Livermore's Civil War Numbers and Losses, and it is here quoted: Sixth and 19th Corps effectives,20,400 Eighth Corps,4,589 Kitching's Division,1,200 —— Total infantry and artillery,26,189 Deduct regulars detached,3,080 Deduct losses October 13th,209 ——3,289 —— Actual infantry and artillery22,900 Effective cavalry,7,929 —— Total all,30,829 For palpable error Livermore's Confederate table is rejected, and the following is taken from the record: Early's effective infantry and artillery, September 30th return, 6,291. From this Gordon's Division is omitted. Its September 10th return was 2,961. Deduct Winchester and Fisher's Hill losses, 505, leaving for Gordon's Division at Cedar Creek, 2,405. For Kershaw's Divis
Spencer (search for this): chapter 1.41
ield, I will quote from Annals of the War, an account by Major Nettleton, of the Second Ohio cavalry: The divisions of Merritt and Custer, aggregating nearly 8,000 of the finest mounted troops in the world, were on the right of the infantry. . . . It was no longer a matter of indifference where cavalry was placed. For the first time during the war the Federal cavalry was really raised to the dignity of a third arm of the service and given its full share in the hard fighting. With their Spencer repeating carbines, their experience in transferring themselves into foot soldiers, Sheridan's mounted force was at once the eye and the right arm of his fighting column. . . . Custer, advance to the centre, was the laconic command from General Wright. And as the sun was rising four thousand troopers, with accompanying batteries, marched into the fight. Both Custer and Merritt were marched from Sheridan's right and interposed across the advance of Early's right. Says General Merritt's
Kershaw (search for this): chapter 1.41
reek Crossing, 182. These deducted leave for Kershaw 3,085. Early's total infantry and artillery rt did order a further advance, by Gordon and Kershaw; which being considered impracticable by themll the record of the facts. The reports from Kershaw's and Ramseur's Divisions narrate how every mral Early's report says punctually at 5 A. M. Kershaw reached the enemy's left work and attacked. *ntil the firing of Bryan's Georgia brigade of Kershaw's division. Having formed on the creek bank ly was misled into stating in his report that Kershaw and Gordon swept everything before them, routcontinuous. The experience of the brigade of Kershaw—Humphrey's—connecting with Ramseur, is rememb19 men killed and wounded. Three brigades of Kershaw's division sustained losses as follows: Conno common opinion among the officers and men of Kershaw's division, which had its full share of the forning, he rode across our brigade front with Kershaw, our gallant and trusted division commander. [18 more...]<
Nettleton (search for this): chapter 1.41
It is composed of good material. In his report of this affair General Early said: The enemy's cavalry is so superior to ours in numbers and equipment that it is impossible for ours to compete with his; . . . besides, the command is demoralized. It would be better if they could be put into infantry. But if that were tried I am afraid they would all run off. To show the strength and importance of the Union cavalry on this field, I will quote from Annals of the War, an account by Major Nettleton, of the Second Ohio cavalry: The divisions of Merritt and Custer, aggregating nearly 8,000 of the finest mounted troops in the world, were on the right of the infantry. . . . It was no longer a matter of indifference where cavalry was placed. For the first time during the war the Federal cavalry was really raised to the dignity of a third arm of the service and given its full share in the hard fighting. With their Spencer repeating carbines, their experience in transferring themsel
Emory (search for this): chapter 1.41
idan's centre. Some even include the 6th Corps. This view is given color by Sheridan's report, which it well suits General Gordon's argument to quote. It is enough to say that it has been bitterly assailed by some of his subordinates, for exaggerating the desperation of the situation when he came on the field, that he might receive the more personal credit for saving the day. His picture of the rout and confusion is shown to be highly discolored by all the other Federal reports. Says General Emory, commander of the 19th Corps: At early dawn my whole command was under arms, * * * when I heard firing to the left. Guided by the firing I ordered the 2d Brigade to cross the pike to support General Crook. * * * It soon became fiercely engaged. * * * It was impossible to make a permanent stand in consequence of the steady flanking by the enemy's right. I therefore ordered my command to establish a new line of resistance. About 1 o'clock I received information that the enemy were a
1 2 3 4 5 6 7