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
W. J. Hardee 426 0 Browse Search
Cleburne 334 18 Browse Search
W. T. Sherman 301 1 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 278 0 Browse Search
J. B. Hood 267 1 Browse Search
Atlanta (Georgia, United States) 182 2 Browse Search
A. P. Hill 175 31 Browse Search
J. Longstreet 148 0 Browse Search
William J. Hardee 145 1 Browse Search
Gettysburg (Pennsylvania, United States) 143 7 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 8. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 207 total hits in 68 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
Russia (Russia) (search for this): chapter 1.4
or treaty to prohibit their use in warfare; but I strongly advocate an agreement or treaty binding all civilized nations to discontinue and forever abandon the use in war of that class of missiles or projectiles which may be used in. small arms and be so sensitive as to explode on contact with animal, flesh. The papers in the case, received through the State and War Departments, are herewith returned. In this connection, I also notice a letter from the Hon. C. M. Clay, our Minister to Russia, which has been referred to this office and herewith returned, and on which I have to report. If the civilized nations persist in refusing to discontinue and abandon the use of sensitive explosive balls, then it would be well for this Government to enter into the agreement suggested by Mr. Clay, whereby we may be enabled to secure their use in case of necessity, by an agreement with him, or his named authorized agent, for the payment of a stipulated royalty on each that may be procured from
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 1.4
s — were they authorized and used by the Confederate States army, or by the United States army durin I. I most emphatically deny that the Confederate States ever authorized the use of explosive or II. I most emphatically assert that the United States did purchase, authorize, issue and use exphose valuable quarto volumes issued by the United States Medical Department and entitled The Medicaly 11th, 1879, that to his knowledge the Confederate States never authorized or used explosive or pohe third place, a brief examination of the United States Patent Office Reports for 1862-3, and the pon the Confederates, were patented by the United States Patent Office at Washington, and were purccircular the then Chief of Ordnance of the United States, General A. B. Dyer, made the following re23, 1862. In the Patent Office Report (United States) for 1863-4 will be found a shell exactly rs. Does Mr. Lossing purposely forget the United States drafts made to fill up the depleted regime[14 more...]
Brooklyn (New York, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.4
plied substantially as herein specified. Second, fitting the pin to the cavity of the bullet in the manner substantially as herein specified, whereby the expansion of the bullet is caused to commence in the front part of its expanding portion and to be gradually continued toward the rear as herein set forth. So much for the explosive ball sent by the Confederates. In the same volume of the Patent Office Reports will be found also the following: No. 36,197--Ira W. Shaler, of Brooklyn, New York, and Reuben Shaler, of Madison, Connecticut, assigned to Ira W. Shaler afore-said--Improvement in Compound Bullet for Small Arms--Patent dated August 12, 1862. This projectile is composed of two or more parts which fit the bore of the barrel and so constructed that the forward end of each of the parts in the rear of the front one enters a cavity in the rear of the one before it, and is formed in relation to the same in such a manner as to separate from it after leaving the barrel of
Fortress Monroe (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.4
ojectiles were used by the United States troops, nor have I any especial desire to prosecute the investigation further than to prove the position taken in this paper. It would be disingenuous in me if I failed to notice the fact that a charge somewhat similar to that which begins this article was made by a correspondent in the Scientific American for September 6th, 1862, volume VII, page 151, as follows: Recently it was my privilege to examine, in the hands of a man just from Fortress Monroe, an explosive bullet, such as was used by the Rebels in the six days battle. It is conical in shape, about one inch long, made of lead, and consists of two parts — viz: a solid head piece and a cylindrical chamber, which are united together by a screw. From the point of the bullet projects a little rod, which passes down through a small hole in the head piece into the chamber below, where it was connected with a percussion cap. The chamber contains about a tablespoonful of powder. Yo
Gettysburg (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.4
. I purpose in this paper to examine the statement of the author of this Pictorial History, and to show, by indisputable proof, its recklessness and its falsity. In the above quotation, he states that he had picked up, on the battlefield of Gettysburg, an explosive and a poisoned ball. These, he adds, were sent by the Confederates. Whether any were ever used by the Nationals, the writer is not informed. I do not desire to be severe beyond justice; but it does seem that as no one ventured st the Confederates of having used explosive and poisoned balls, has been made before, and often repeated since, it has never been supported by one grain of proof. How did this author ascertain that the balls he picked up on the battlefield of Gettysburg were sent by the Confederates? How did he learn that one was an explosive and the other a poisoned projectile? Did he test the explosive power of the one and the poisonous character of the other? He gives no evidence of having done so, and a
Biloxi (Mississippi, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.4
the reply that the Medical Department is without any information as to wounds by such missiles. I do not find such projectiles noticed as preserved in the museum of the Surgeon-General's Department, where rifle projectiles taken from wounds are usually deposited. In the second place, the manufacture, purchase, issue or use of such projectiles for firearms by the Confederate States, is positively denied by the Confederate authorities, as the following correspondence will show: Beauvoir, Miss., 28th June, 1879. My Dear Sir--. . . In reply to your inquiries as to the use of explosive or poisoned balls by the troops of the Confederate States, I state as positively as one may in such a case that the charge has no foundation in truth. Our Government certainly did not manufacture or import such balls, and if any were captured from the enemy, they could probably only have been used in the captured arms for which they were suited. I heard occasionally that the enemy did use exp
Fredericksburg, Va. (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.4
overnment of a trial of the Gardiner musket shell. In May, 1862, Mr. Gardiner offered to sell some of his explosive musket shells to the Government at a stipulated price. His application was referred to General Ripley with the following endorsement: Will General Ripley consider whether this explosive shell will be a valuable missile in battle? A. Lincoln. General Ripley replied that it had no value as a service projectile. In June, 1862, Brigadier-General Rufus King, at Fredericksburg, made a requisition for some of the Gardiner musket shells. On referring this application to the Chief of Ordnance, General Ripley, that old army officer, whose sense of right must have been shocked at this instance of barbarism, a second time recorded his disapproval, replying that it was not advisable to furnish any such missiles to the troops at present in service. In September, 1862, the Chief of Ordnance of the Eleventh corps, United States army, recommended the shell to the Ass
Brownsville, Fayette County, Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.4
er, had explored the Susquehanna river as far north as the Wyoming Valley (Harper's Magazine, November, 1860), and who draws so largely on his imagination, and is so much controlled by his prejudices in his History of the Civil War, cannot be considered an entirely trustworthy historian. But because Mr. Lossing's histories have flooded the North, and are largely accepted as authentic narrations of events, it is due to the Confederates and the cause for which they so long and nobly battled, against such fearful odds, that the truth be made known and Mr. Lossing's misstatements exposed. It is earnestly to be hoped that the facts presented in this paper will forever set at rest the malicious slander so often repeated against the Confederates, by many who are so willing to believe anything against them, of having authorized the use in military warfare of such atrocious and barbarous missiles as explosive and poisoned musket or rifle balls. H. E. H. Brownsville, Pa., September 1, 1879.
Europe (search for this): chapter 1.4
g of this paper, that the men of the South were forced into the Confederate ranks against their will, while those of the North were volunteers. Does Mr. Lossing purposely forget the United States drafts made to fill up the depleted regiments in the field, and especially the draft of May, 1863, two months before the battle of Gettysburg, and the riots that occurred in New York city as the result of that draft? Does he purposely forget that the United States established recruiting offices in Europe to procure men for her armies? It may be questioned whether as a historian Mr. Lossing is deserving even the notice of a novice in history; for, while he is known to be a voluminous writer of American history, he is also known to be a writer of many and great inaccuracies. A writer who has allowed himself to be so easily imposed upon as in his ready acceptance as true history of the Morgan Jones Welsh Indian fraud (American Historical Record, I, 250); who makes such glaring historical mi
Alleghany River (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.4
is also known to be a writer of many and great inaccuracies. A writer who has allowed himself to be so easily imposed upon as in his ready acceptance as true history of the Morgan Jones Welsh Indian fraud (American Historical Record, I, 250); who makes such glaring historical mistakes as his statement that General Braddock was defeated and killed at the battle of the Great Meadows (History of the Revolutionary War), and that Captain John Smith, the Virginia explorer, had explored the Susquehanna river as far north as the Wyoming Valley (Harper's Magazine, November, 1860), and who draws so largely on his imagination, and is so much controlled by his prejudices in his History of the Civil War, cannot be considered an entirely trustworthy historian. But because Mr. Lossing's histories have flooded the North, and are largely accepted as authentic narrations of events, it is due to the Confederates and the cause for which they so long and nobly battled, against such fearful odds, that t
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...