DOCSLIB.ORG

A Publication of President Jefferson Davis Camp 175, Colorado Springs, Colorado

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Publication of President Jefferson Davis Camp 175, Colorado Springs, Colorado Volume 1 Number 10 October 2019 A Publication of President Jefferson Davis Camp 175, Colorado Springs, Colorado IN THIS ISSUE “The principle for which Commanders Report 2 we contend is bound to 2nd Lt Comm’s Report 2 reassert itself, though it Make the Yankees Work may be at another time 3 for Us and in another form.” Naming the War 4 - Pres. Jefferson Davis Charge to the Sons of Confederate Veterans: "To you, Sons of Confederate Veterans, we will commit the vindication of the cause for which we fought. To your strength will be given the defense of the Confederate soldier's good name, the guardianship of his history, the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles which he loved and which you love also, and those ideals which made him glorious and which you also cherish." Lt. General Stephen Dill Lee, Commander General, United Confederate Veterans, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 25, 1906 1 Greetings Compatriots and Friends! ll we ask is to be let alone. Jefferson Davis’ eight simple, powerful words are still ring true today for many Southerners. But in today’s world and society, we are asking that our heritage, monuments, A statues and history be left alone. I suppose, in some sense, we still just want to be left alone, just as President Davis desired so long ago. Now that concept may seem strange to some folks. We are, after all, still citizens of the Union that finally conquered the honorable, Christian Confederate Army. Despite the harsh treatment and perpetual prejudice, Southerners assimilated once again into the nation. Southerners adopted a positive attitude and produced some of the greatest post-war leaders, citizens and warriors. Yet despite our best efforts, we are still ostracized, brutalized, penalized and marginalized. We are still characterized as racists, Commander's Report misogynists and anarchists. Regardless of how hard we try to be “good” citizens of the USA, we are still viewed with a jaundiced eye as “second Buck Dugger class” citizens, those redneck crackers and hillbillies with the IQ of a cornpone. We will never be left alone, and we will always be “those rebels”. So, what do we do? How do we act and react? I can tell you how I will deal with this conundrum. I will engage. If I will not be left alone or accepted, I will take every opportunity to engage, correct and educate those that will not leave me alone. I will strive to disprove their lies, misrepresentations and character assaults. When I get through with them, they will wish they had “let me alone”. Each of us must decide how we will cope and react to our treatment in today’s society. Some will hide and avoid even the most benign skirmish. Others will blindly attack with reckless abandon. My recommendation is to educate yourself with the truth and facts, then strongly engage with a respectful tone. “Did you know…” Were you aware that…” Or, “Would you show me where you got that information?” These have worked well for me. Perhaps you would want to try this approach. We will face someone somewhere that has been schooled with the politically correct attitude of, “Well, everybody knows…” We must actively and strongly battle that enemy today, and every day. The Flag Lt. Commander's The Confederate Flag is not the official flag of the KKK. The KKK has used the Stars and Stripes more than the Confederate Battle Flag. Report Television, history books, the media and the schools abound in Jim Latham falsehoods and inaccuracies concerning the Confederate States of America’s Battle Flag. Mainly to outsiders this flag represents everything they fear in our history, and they associate this fear with the KKK. It is noted that at all KKK meetings, in actual photographs and films from the past, and on KKK cable access talk shows they all proudly display the U.S. flag as their banner. Norfolk, Virginia Suing the Commonwealth The city of Norfolk, Virginia is suing the Commonwealth to move a 2nd Lt. Commander's Confederate statue of a Confederate soldier. Since 2017, his monument Report has been vandalized three times with words like, "shame" and "take it down." They say that the purpose of moving the statue, for example to a Luke Montoya cemetery, is to make it less likely to be vandalized, however the Commonwealth of Virginia contains legislation that protects monuments from removal, relocation or alteration. Read the rest here: https://legalnewsline.com/stories/513708228-after-monument-of-confederate-soldier-vandalized- virginia-city-sues-to-move-it-elsewhere The Jefferson Davis Dispatch October 2019 Vol 1, Number 10 2 City of Franklin, Tennessee Employees Remove Civil War Markers A complaint has been filed against the city of Franklin by the Sons of Confederate Veterans due to unknown employees of the city removing markers commemorating generals in the Confederacy and their deaths. Eric Stuckey, City of Franklin administrator, says the markers are confusing and doesn’t know who placed them, going on to say that the reason they were taken down was due to long study by the city's Civil War Historical Commission. Read the rest here: https://wreg.com/2019/08/19/sons-of-confederate-veterans-says-markers-improperly-removed/ They Can't Keep Us Down A pole bearing the Confederate Flag was raised, ripped down and raised again in Pittsboro, North Carolina. On September 26th, in the cowardly dead of night, trespassers tore down the flag, along with pole. By the next afternoon, the Virginia Flaggers, staunch supporters of our culture, had the flag and pole upright once more. A post of theirs on Facebook reads, "We are thrilled at the reaction and support from local citizens, who are fed up with the attempts by activist liberals to eradicate local history and disrespect their veterans." Read the rest here: https://www.wral.com/confederate-flag-raised-felled-raised-again-in-pittsboro/18662513/ The Jefferson Davis Dispatch October 2019 Vol 1, Number 10 3 NAMING THE WAR. Confederate veterans of two States have lately gone on record as opposing the term “Civil War,” applied to the war during the sixties; and the South Carolina Division, U. C. V., in annual convention at Greenwood July 22 and 23, in indorsing the resolutions presented by Gen. C. I. Walker against the use of this term, also prohibited its use at or during any official reunions or other meetings of this Division. Veterans in convention at Bonham, Tex.. July 4 also indorsed similar resolutions presented by J. I. Dupree and passed them unanimously. The resolutions presented to these two conventions are so similar in expression that they are not given here in full, but in combined form as setting forth, reasons for objection to the term. The term “Civil War” can be properly applied only to wars between contending factions of the same government, and the war in the sixties was fought between two separate de facto and de jure governments, which were in existence and in complete running order before a gun was fired in that war; it means a contest between two or more portions of the people of the same country, and the Southern States had legally, constitutionally, and peacefully seceded from the other States of the Union, and therefore were not of the same country. The war between the Federal and Confederate governments was not a struggle between clans or factions, and the term would be correct only if the sovereign States so seceding did not constitutionally leave the old Union. Many people use the term “Civil War” without due consideration of its legitimate and inferential meaning and do not realize that it implies that their patriotic ancestors were traitors to the Union rather than defenders of the great American principle that all governments should rest upon the consent of the governed; and every veteran, son, or daughter of the Confederacy who uses the term pleads guilty to the old charge of rebellion which was so freely made against the South, but on which President Davis could never be brought to trial. In his resolutions General Walker suggested that the war be known as the “War of Secession”; but as there was some diversity of opinion, it was not agreed upon. The Texas veterans strongly indorsed the use of “Confederate War.” This matter will be brought before the General Reunion in Atlanta, and it is hoped that some definite term will be agreed upon and the objectionable “Civil War” be eliminated by strong prohibition. The Texas veterans also made strong protest against the use of “Yanks” as a name for the American troops of to-day, saying: “No sectional name should be applied to our armies now, and the glorious term ‘American troops,’ which was applied to our brave soldiers of the American Revolution and of the Mexican and Spanish Wars, is still good enough for us.” In response to the editorial reference to this subject in the Veteran for August, page 284, Lloyd T. Everett writes from Ballston, Va.: “It seems to me that the answer is to be found in the selfsame number of the Veteran, page 318, where Mr. Hiscocks writes from Cleveland, Ohio: ‘If you could only live where I do and see the ignorance of otherwise intelligent Northern people regarding the war for Southern independence, etc.’ “In these days of revival of Confederate principles under the name of ‘self-determination’ of freedom-loving peoples, why not dispel some of this prevailing ignorance by using a name for our struggle that will of itself help show the identity of 1861 with those of the liberty-loving nations of 1914? Stonewall Jackson called it ‘our second war of independence’ (Dabney's Life of Jackson, 1866.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Battle to Interpret Arlington House, 1921–1937,” by Michael B
    Welcome to a free reading from Washington History: Magazine of the Historical Society of Washington, D.C. As we chose this week’s reading, news stories continued to swirl about commemorative statues, plaques, street names, and institutional names that amplify white supremacy in America and in DC. We note, as the Historical Society fulfills its mission of offering thoughtful, researched context for today’s issues, that a key influence on the history of commemoration has come to the surface: the quiet, ladylike (in the anachronistic sense) role of promoters of the southern “Lost Cause” school of Civil War interpretation. Historian Michael Chornesky details how federal officials fended off southern supremacists (posing as preservationists) on how to interpret Arlington House, home of George Washington’s adopted family and eventually of Confederate commander Robert E. Lee. “Confederate Island upon the Union’s ‘Most Hallowed Ground’: The Battle to Interpret Arlington House, 1921–1937,” by Michael B. Chornesky. “Confederate Island” first appeared in Washington History 27-1 (spring 2015), © Historical Society of Washington, D.C. Access via JSTOR* to the entire run of Washington History and its predecessor, Records of the Columbia Historical Society, is a benefit of membership in the Historical Society of Washington, D.C. at the Membership Plus level. Copies of this and many other back issues of Washington History magazine are available for browsing and purchase online through the DC History Center Store: https://dchistory.z2systems.com/np/clients/dchistory/giftstore.jsp ABOUT THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON, D.C. The Historical Society of Washington, D.C., is a non-profit, 501(c)(3), community-supported educational and research organization that collects, interprets, and shares the history of our nation's capital in order to promote a sense of identity, place and pride in our city and preserve its heritage for future generations.
    [Show full text]
  • United Confederate Veterans Association Records
    UNITED CONFEDERATE VETERANS ASSOCIATION RECORDS (Mss. 1357) Inventory Compiled by Luana Henderson 1996 Louisiana and Lower Mississippi Valley Collections Special Collections, Hill Memorial Library Louisiana State University Libraries Baton Rouge, Louisiana Revised 2009 UNITED CONFEDERATE VETERANS ASSOCIATION RECORDS Mss. 1357 1861-1944 Special Collections, LSU Libraries CONTENTS OF INVENTORY SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 3 BIOGRAPHICAL/HISTORICAL NOTE ...................................................................................... 4 SCOPE AND CONTENT NOTE ................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF SUBGROUPS AND SERIES ......................................................................................... 7 SUBGROUPS AND SERIES DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................ 8 INDEX TERMS ............................................................................................................................ 13 CONTAINER LIST ...................................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................... 22 APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Shadow of Napoleon Upon Lee at Gettysburg
    Papers of the 2017 Gettysburg National Military Park Seminar The Shadow of Napoleon upon Lee at Gettysburg Charles Teague Every general commanding an army hopes to win the next battle. Some will dream that they might accomplish a decisive victory, and in this Robert E. Lee was no different. By the late spring of 1863 he already had notable successes in battlefield trials. But now, over two years into a devastating war, he was looking to destroy the military force that would again oppose him, thereby assuring an end to the war to the benefit of the Confederate States of America. In the late spring of 1863 he embarked upon an audacious plan that necessitated a huge vulnerability: uncovering the capital city of Richmond. His speculation, which proved prescient, was that the Union army that lay between the two capitals would be directed to pursue and block him as he advanced north Robert E. Lee, 1865 (LOC) of the Potomac River. He would thereby draw it out of entrenched defensive positions held along the Rappahannock River and into the open, stretched out by marching. He expected that force to risk a battle against his Army of Northern Virginia, one that could bring a Federal defeat such that the cities of Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Washington might succumb, morale in the North to continue the war would plummet, and the South could achieve its true independence. One of Lee’s major generals would later explain that Lee told him in the march to battle of his goal to destroy the Union army.
    [Show full text]
  • The Other Side of the Monument: Memory, Preservation, and the Battles of Franklin and Nashville
    THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MONUMENT: MEMORY, PRESERVATION, AND THE BATTLES OF FRANKLIN AND NASHVILLE by JOE R. BAILEY B.S., Austin Peay State University, 2006 M.A., Austin Peay State University, 2008 AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History College of Arts and Sciences KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2015 Abstract The thriving areas of development around the cities of Franklin and Nashville in Tennessee bear little evidence of the large battles that took place there during November and December, 1864. Pointing to modern development to explain the failed preservation of those battlefields, however, radically oversimplifies how those battlefields became relatively obscure. Instead, the major factor contributing to the lack of preservation of the Franklin and Nashville battlefields was a fractured collective memory of the two events; there was no unified narrative of the battles. For an extended period after the war, there was little effort to remember the Tennessee Campaign. Local citizens and veterans of the battles simply wanted to forget the horrific battles that haunted their memories. Furthermore, the United States government was not interested in saving the battlefields at Franklin and Nashville. Federal authorities, including the War Department and Congress, had grown tired of funding battlefields as national parks and could not be convinced that the two battlefields were worthy of preservation. Moreover, Southerners and Northerners remembered Franklin and Nashville in different ways, and historians mainly stressed Eastern Theater battles, failing to assign much significance to Franklin and Nashville. Throughout the 20th century, infrastructure development encroached on the battlefields and they continued to fade from public memory.
    [Show full text]
  • James Longstreet and the Retreat from Gettysburg
    “Such a night is seldom experienced…” James Longstreet and the Retreat from Gettysburg Karlton Smith, Gettysburg NMP After the repulse of Lt. Gen. James Longstreet’s Assault on July 3, 1863, Gen. Robert E. Lee, commanding the Army of Northern Virginia, knew that the only option left for him at Gettysburg was to try to disengage from his lines and return with his army to Virginia. Longstreet, commander of the army’s First Corps and Lee’s chief lieutenant, would play a significant role in this retrograde movement. As a preliminary to the general withdrawal, Longstreet decided to pull his troops back from the forward positions gained during the fighting on July 2. Lt. Col. G. Moxley Sorrel, Longstreet’s adjutant general, delivered the necessary orders to Maj. Gen. Lafayette McLaws, commanding one of Longstreet’s divisions. Sorrel offered to carry the order to Brig. Gen. Evander M. Law, commanding John B. Hood’s division, on McLaws’s right. McLaws raised objections to this order. He felt that his advanced position was important and “had been won after a deadly struggle; that the order was given no doubt because of [George] Pickett’s repulse, but as there was no pursuit there was no necessity of it.” Sorrel interrupted saying: “General, there is no discretion allowed, the order is for you to retire at once.” Gen. James Longstreet, C.S.A. (LOC) As McLaws’s forward line was withdrawing to Warfield and Seminary ridges, the Federal batteries on Little Round Top opened fire, “but by quickening the pace the aim was so disturbed that no damage was done.” McLaws’s line was followed by “clouds of skirmishers” from the Federal Army of the Potomac; however, after reinforcing his own skirmish line they were driven back from the Peach Orchard area.
    [Show full text]
  • THE TEXAS CONFEDERATE HOME for MEN, 1884-1970 Amy Sue Kirchenbauer, B.A
    THE TEXAS CONFEDERATE HOME FOR MEN, 1884-1970 Amy Sue Kirchenbauer, B.A. Thesis Prepared for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS August 2011 APPROVED: Richard Lowe, Major Professor Richard McCaslin, Committee Member and Chair of the Department of History Harland Hagler, Committee Member James D. Meernik, Acting Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School Kirchenbauer, Amy Sue, The Texas Confederate Home for Men, 1884-1970. Master of Arts (History), August 2011, 116 pp., bibliography, 91 titles. Founded in 1886 by a local veteran’s organization, the Texas Confederate Home for Men served thousands of veterans throughout its tenure. State-run beginning in 1891, the facility became the center of controversy multiple times, with allegations of mistreatment of residents, misappropriation of funds, and unsanitary conditions in the home. Despite these problems, for several decades the home effectively provided large numbers of needy veterans with a place where they could live out their remaining years. The home was finally closed by the state in 1965, and the buildings were demolished in 1970. The facility’s success helped to inspire Texas to introduce a veteran pension system, and brought forth a new era in the state’s willingness to take care of veterans once their wars were over. Copyright 2011 by Amy Sue Kirchenbauer ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work would not have been completed without the guidance of Dr. Richard Lowe. He urged me frequently to move beyond the limits of what I thought myself to be capable of, and I am a better historian for it. His dedication to helping me achieve my dreams and hours spent editing my efforts will always be appreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Pension?: Establishing the Reasons for Body Servant Pensions Using Newspaper and Magazine Depictions
    WHY PENSION?: ESTABLISHING THE REASONS FOR BODY SERVANT PENSIONS USING NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINE DEPICTIONS Bryna Claire O’Sullivan A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of History. Chapel Hill 2011 Approved by: Dr. Joseph Glatthaar Dr. Heather Williams Dr. W. Fitzhugh Brundage ABSTRACT BRYNA O’SULLIVAN: Why Pension?: Establishing the Reasons for Body Servant Pensions Using Newspaper and Magazine Depictions (Under the direction of Dr. Joseph Glatthaar and Dr. Heather Williams) Between 1888 and 1927, the legislators of former Confederate states began granting pensions to men that had served as body servants in the Confederate Army during the Civil War. The action seems illogical given the segregated conditions of the South. This paper explores the question of why pensions were offered. Relying upon newspaper and magazine descriptions of the servants, it suggests that pensions were largely the product of changes in body servant image brought about by the Lost Cause and of the changes in attitudes that followed. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION…………...……………………………………………………………………………………1 THE LOST CAUSE……………….……………………………………………………………………………....5 DUTY……………………………………………………………………………………………………………23 REINFORCEMENT……………………………..………………………………………………………………26 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………….………………………………………….30 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………………………..32 iii Introduction On June 3, 1862 , Samuel W. Maurice of Kingtree, South Carolina placed an ad in The Charleston Daily Courier. In the ad, he requested a “body servant to go with the undersigned into Camp; whether slave, or free is immaterial.” He continued: “Will give $8 per month and pay monthly if required.” Maurice wanted to hire an African- American male to act as a man-of-all-work in the Army camp.
    [Show full text]
  • Remembering Perryville: History and Memory at a Civil War Battlefield”
    1 “Remembering Perryville: History and Memory at a Civil War Battlefield” Kenneth W. Noe, Dept. of History, Auburn University, Auburn AL 36830 Popular Culture Association and American Culture Association Conference, Apr. 14, 2001 While members of the general public regularly travel to Civil War battlefield parks in large numbers, they usually do not give much thought to the history of those pastoral facilities. With the notable exception of Gettysburg, the same can be said of most scholars. Yet the slow evolution of battlefields as state-owned parks can tell us much about the nation’s post-Civil War history and search for meaning. Battlefields became the focus of new battles over how the Civil War was to be remembered, who was to be included or excluded in establishing an orthodox memory, and who was to profit from their establishment. In the process, those who saw the land as something other than a historical tableau struggled to establish a different identity. That process continues today. The battlefield at Perryville, Kentucky, offers a lesser known example of the process. On October 8, 1862, Union and Confederate forces clashed just west of Perryville, a small market town located southwest of Lexington in the commonwealth’s central bluegrass. The climax of a hard, six- week campaign that shifted the focus of the western war from northern Mississippi hundreds of miles toward the Ohio River, the battle ended inconclusively. Although a tactical Confederate victory, Gen. Braxton Bragg abandoned the hard-won field overnight to his numerically stronger foe and commenced a retreat that eventually led back to Middle Tennessee’s Stones River at the end of the year.
    [Show full text]
  • Confederate Historical Resources
    Confederate Historical Resources General Resources Clark, Walter. Histories of the Several Regiments and Battalions from North Carolina in the Great War 1861-'65. 5 vols. VA REF 973.7456 CLA Current, Richard N., editor. Encyclopedia of the Confederacy. 4 vols. VA REF 973.713 ENC Dyer, Frederick. A Compendium of the War of Rebellion. 4 vols. VA REF 973.7 DYE Felton, Silas, compiler. Military Bibliography of the Civil War. (Vol. 4 of Dornbush) VA REF 016.9737 FEL Evans, Clement, editor. Confederate Military History, Extended Edition. 17 vols. VA REF 973.7 CON Hewett, Janet B., editor. The Roster of Confederate Soldiers 1861 - 1865. 16 vols. VA REF 973.742 ROS Virginia Confederate Soldiers 1861 - 1865. 4 vols. VA REF 973.7455 VIR A to Z listing of servicemen from Virginia and their units. Howard, H.E., publisher. Virginia Regimental History Series and the Virginia Battles and Leaders Series. Located in Confederate Corner in numerical order by regiment/battalion and alphabetically by battery name. Manarin, Louis H., editor. Confederate Veteran Magazine. 43 vols. VA REF 973.74 CON Sifakis, Stewart. Compendium of Confederate Armies. 10 vols. VA REF 973.742 SIF Southern Bivouac. Publication of the Southern Historical Association of Louisville. 6 vols. VA REF 975 SOU Southern Historical Society Papers. 55 vols. VA REF 975.03 IND Warner, Ezra. Generals in Gray, Lives of the Confederate Commanders. VA REF 973.742 WAR The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. 130 vols. VA REF 973.7 UNI Supplement to the Records of the Union and Confederate Armies.
    [Show full text]
  • Confederate Eyeglass, Terre Haute, Indiana
    Episode 2, 2006: Confederate Eyeglass, Terre Haute, Indiana Wes Cowan: Our next story takes a unique look at the secret history of southern sympathizers in the North during the Civil War. February 1862 the Confederate South has seized the upper hand in the War Between the States. In the North, opposition to President Lincoln grows as fears spread his armies will be defeated. Secret societies form in the Union states bordering the South, united in opposition to both Lincoln and the war. Those southern sympathizers operating north of the Mason Dixon line are surprisingly powerful and dangerous. More than 140 years later, a Terre Haute, Indiana, couple owns a mysterious artifact which they believe may shed light on this little-known chapter of the Civil War. Larry Liggit: We think that it probably was an item that someone with southern inclinations or southern tendencies would wear. We had this wonderful story about where this piece came from and who owned it, and we’ve always been very curious about is the story true? Wes: I’m Wes Cowan. I’ve come to Indiana to meet with Larry and Cindy Liggit to find about more about their family heirloom. The civil war and American photography are my specialties. So I’m intrigued to see what they have. Oh, okay. Little, tiny spyglass. This is called a stanhope. It’s a little optical toy. Oh, my heavens! That’s Jefferson Davis! I’ve never seen one with a picture of him inside. Right off the bat, I’m intrigued. As president of the confederacy, Jefferson Davis was a powerful symbol of southern secession.
    [Show full text]
  • Confederate Veteran 1909
    Page 1 of 104 Confederate Veteran Magazine Created by Margie Daniels PUBLISHED MONTHLY IN THE INTEREST OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS AND KINDRED TOPICS January 1909 Entered at the post office at Nashville, Tenn., as second class matter. Contributors are requested to use only one side of the paper, and to abbreviate as much as practicable. These suggestions are important. Where clippings are sent copy should be kept, as the VETERAN cannot undertake to return them. Advertising rates furnished on application The date to a subscription is always given to the month before it ends. For Instance, if the VETERAN is ordered to begin with January, the date on mail list will be December, and the subscriber is entitled to that number. The civil war was too long ago to be called the late war, and when correspondents use that term " War between the States' will be substituted. The terms "New South" and " lost cause" are objectionable to the VETERAN. OFFICIALLY REPRESENTS UNITED CONFEDERATE VETERANS UNITED DAUGHTERS OF THE CONFEDERACY SONS OF VETERANS, AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS CONFEDERATED SOUTHERN MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION The VETERAN is approved and indorsed officially by a larger and more elevated patronage, doubtless, than any other publication in existence. Though men deserve, they may not win success, The brave will honor the brave, vanquished none the less PRICE, $1.00 PER YEAR} VOL. XVII. NASHVILLE, TENN., JANUARY, 1909. No. 1 S. A. CUNNINGHAM, PROPRIETOR CV Page 2 of 104 Confederate Veteran Magazine Created by Margie Daniels JEFFERSON DAVIS HOME ASSOCIATION To All Camps of the U. C. V. and All Confederate Soldiers, Sons and Daughters: I write earnestly in commending the movement to establish the appropriate memorial as set forth in the appeal of the Jefferson Davis Home Association.
    [Show full text]
  • James Longstreet and His Staff of the First Corps
    Papers of the 2017 Gettysburg National Military Park Seminar The Best Staff Officers in the Army- James Longstreet and His Staff of the First Corps Karlton Smith Lt. Gen. James Longstreet had the best staff in the Army of Northern Virginia and, arguably, the best staff on either side during the Civil War. This circumstance would help to make Longstreet the best corps commander on either side. A bold statement indeed, but simple to justify. James Longstreet had a discriminating eye for talent, was quick to recognize the abilities of a soldier and fellow officer in whom he could trust to complete their assigned duties, no matter the risk. It was his skill, and that of the officers he gathered around him, which made his command of the First Corps- HIS corps- significantly successful. The Confederate States Congress approved the organization of army corps in October 1862, the law approving that corps commanders were to hold the rank of lieutenant general. President Jefferson Davis General James Longstreet in 1862. requested that Gen. Robert E. Lee provide (Museum of the Confederacy) recommendations for the Confederate army’s lieutenant generals. Lee confined his remarks to his Army of Northern Virginia: “I can confidently recommend Generals Longstreet and Jackson in this army,” Lee responded, with no elaboration on Longstreet’s abilities. He did, however, add a few lines justifying his recommendation of Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson as a corps commander.1 When the promotion list was published, Longstreet ranked as the senior lieutenant general in the Confederate army with a date of rank of October 9, 1862.
    [Show full text]