hide Matching Documents

Your search returned 140 results in 77 document sections:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
unm.; Amos, b. 9, bap. 12 Dec. 1779; Lydia, b. 14, bap. 24 Mar. 1782, m. Jonathan Teel, 3d, of Chas., 24 Mar. 1805; Sally, bap. 29 Nov. 1789, d. 22 Dec. 1808, a. 19 (g. s.). William the father d. 13 June, 1815, a. 72 (g. s.); his wid. (Mercy, or Marcy), d. (31 July) 1 Aug. 1828, a. 81 (g. s.). Had also Rebecca, b. 19 July, 1784, m. Walter Russell, 2d, of Chas., 24 Dec. 1805, and d. 18 Dec. 1814, a. 30; Samuel, b. 4 July, 1787, d. 3 Aug. 1815, a. 28 (g. s.). 9. Daniel, s. of Nathaniel (3), mau. Lois m. Josiah Mason, Jr., 1784. 10. Patten, s. of Joseph (4), m. Mary Dickson, 25 July, 1749. He o. c. Pct. ch. 25 Mar. 1750, and was adm. to this ch. 23 June, 1782. His w. Mary d. 14 Feb. 1781. He d. 19 Jan. 1802, a. 70; and his wid. Marcy (or Mercy) d. 12 Feb. 1813, a. 82 (g. s.). Had Lucy, b. 12, bap. 25 Mar. 1750, d. 26 Oct. 1751, a. 2d yr.; Mary, b. 12, bap. 15 Oct. 1752; Lucy, b. 6, bap. 16 Mar. 1755; Joseph, bap. 24 Sept. 1758; Naomi, bap. 25 Jan. 1761, m. Abraham Cook, 5 Jul
Comte de Paris, History of the Civil War in America. Vol. 1. (ed. Henry Coppee , LL.D.), Book I:—the American army. (search)
this little band, strewing with the debris of its train the frozen mantle of the desert, continued its terrible march with more perseverance than prudence. But it could only accomplish fourteen leagues, at the end of which it had to stop from exhaustion, and was compelled to establish its winter quarters in the gloomy region where it found itself blockaded. The greatest part of the provisions having been lost, all had to live upon mule flesh. Finally, this last resource having failed, Captain Marcy—who afterwards became a general in the Federal army—undertook the perilous task of going to solicit a fresh supply of provisions and conveyances among the settlements of New Mexico. He lost nearly all his companions on the route, and only accomplished the mission, on the success of which the salvation of the army depended, after unheard — of sufferings. Thanks to him, the fresh supplies arrived in time, and Johnston was able to reach Great Salt Lake City in the spring. When hostilit<
Comte de Paris, History of the Civil War in America. Vol. 2. (ed. Henry Coppee , LL.D.), chapter 8 (search)
mies, to explain the first book. I.—report of the army of the Potomac On the 1st of April, 1862. N. B. The troops marked thus (*) did not form part of those which landed at Fortress Monroe. Those marked thus (†) joined McClellan after he had landed. The brigades where dots (......) are substituted for the name of the commander were without regular commanders, and under the orders of the senior colonel. Commander-in-chief, Major-General McClellan. Chief of Staff, Brigadier-general Marcy. Adjutant-general, Brigadier-general S. Williams. Chief of Cavalry, Brigadier-general Stoneman. Inspector-general, Colonel Sackett. Chief of Engineers, Brigadier-general Barnard. Chief of Topographical Engineers, Brigadier-general Humphreys. Surgeon-in-chief, Doctor Tripler. Quartermaster-general, Brigadier-general Van Vliet. Chief Commissary of Subsistence, Colonel Clarke. Chief of Ordnance, Colonel Kingsbury. Provost Marshal-general, Brigadier-general Andrew Porter.
Medford Historical Society Papers, Volume 3., Births, Deaths, and Marriages from early records. (search)
his Wife Born october ye 6th/1723 Sarah Hall Daugter of Stephen Hall and Elefebath his Wife Born ye 14th—1724 Elefebath Bradfhow Daugter of Ihon Bradfhow and Marcy his Wife Born october ye 19—1722 Samll. Sprague Son of Bunker Sprague and Martha his Wife Born Setemr. ye 2d/1724 Phebe Thompfon Daughter Iona Thompfon and AHis Wife Born Ianuary ye: 12th. 17256 Iohn Tufts Son of Iohn Tufts and Elefebath his Wife Born Decembr. ye 13th 1723 Nathan Bradthow Son of Iohn Bradfhow and Marcy his Wife Born Ianuary—ye 4th 1724 Cotton Bradfhow Son of Iohn Bradfhaw and Marcy his Wife Born Decr. ye 14th 1725 Samuell Turner Son of Samull. Turner and PrMarcy his Wife Born Decr. ye 14th 1725 Samuell Turner Son of Samull. Turner and Prufilla his Wife born octor—ye 17th 1729— Elefebath Hall Daughter of Stephen Hall Elefebeth his Born Born Decr. 19: 1725 Deaths Iohn Tufts Son of Iohn Tufts Dyed Auguft ye 16=/1725 Attwood Wife of Ollever Attwood Dyed October The Thirtyeth— 1725 Deacon Thomas Willis Senr Dyed Augoft 14 1725 Iohn Polly Son of S
ised over the threat that, in the event of war, the South will employ privateers against the commerce of its enemy. Of course it will.--When did New England give up that right against Old England? In the Revolution, and in the late war, New England privateers swarmed on every sea, and rendered most efficient service. It is fresh in every man's memory that when the Paris Conference of European Powers a few years ago called upon America to give up privateering, America said flatly no, and Mr. Marcy and Gen. Cass both established that right so conclusively in their correspondence with the British Government that the latter made no farther attempt to controvert the principle.--Even since the present controversy has commenced, a Black Republican has proposed through one of the New York journals to fit out a privateer to cruise along the Southern coast, and make raids upon unprotected territory. Of course, the South will use privateering. It has been recognized from the beginning by th
ring is behind the age, unchristian in the estimation of most people, and justifiable only in self-defence. We should hang even those suspected of it to the yard-arms, by Lynch law, without judge or jury." Of all the cool things this side the North Pole, commend us to this paragraph. The effrontery of it is unparalleled, amazing, sublime. The South forgets that privateering is behind the age! How long is it since the North forgot the same thing? Why, the ink is scarcely dry on Secretary Marcy's flat refusal to the propositions of the Paris Peace Congress to America to give up privateering, a refusal which every paper in the United States applauded to the echo, among them the very one which now talks about privateering being unchristian and behind the age! If privateering is unchristian, it took the Christian world a long time to find out the sin of it, for every Christian, as well as unchristian nation on the face of the earth has practiced it, and none as much as the Unite
nd to hold them, if captured, subject to the laws of piracy.--This, observes the Enquirer, is an absurdity, which could only emanate from a miserable Black Republican lawyer. All the world knows that the law of nations recognizes the "militia of the seas" as a legitimate arm of offensive service. For hundred of years the policy of every nation has been to cripple, by all available means, the commerce of an enemy. In the last war with Great Britain our privateers swarmed upon the ocean. Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State under Pierce, in an able paper, maintained the right and the policy of privateering, and refused to enter into a convention with the European Powers to abolish it. The Proclamation will have no effect in stopping privateers. Men who go upon such enterprises go with their lives in their hands, and, if the laws of civilized warfare and the whole usage of the United States are to be disregarded, by hanging privateers men when taken as pirates, the South will most ass
army to agree not to employ volunteers or militia in emergency. Privateers are the volunteers of the sea. In a few months the South will have a formidable Navy, doing terrible execution upon the enemy's commerce, though now she has scarcely a vessel in commission. The North is committed to privateering. She cannot treat it as piracy. It is in vain for her to expect the European powers to put it under the ban of international law. There stands the North's own protest in the name of Mr. Marcy, against such a proposition. It was a Northern President and a Northern Secretary of State that defcated the proposition of the Paris Conference in 1856. Nor will the interests of the European powers permit them to interfere in this matter. Southern privateering puts five millions of Northern tonnage out of the field of competition and opens that field wide and free to European shipping. They will say to the North, "we proposed to abolish this thing; you refused to do so; it is now our
rs, and allow their trade to be carried on in Northern bottoms; so that the North has every advantage in waging a war, so far as blockade and the transport of troops by sea are concerned. President Davis now ventures on the extremest act of hostility to which a ruler can resort. Privateering has been abolished by the European Powers since 1856; but it will be remembered that when, after the Congress of Paris, in 1856, England proposed to the United States to join in this condemnation, Secretary Marcy rejected the proposal on the ground that privateering was justifiable in itself, and absolutely necessary for a nation which did not keep up great naval armaments. In the present case, however, the Government at Washington threatens to treat privateers as pirates, on the ground that the authority they sail under has no legal existence. Should this be carried out, and a Southern privateer be hanged, we must look for bloody reprisals on the part of the Confederate States. The passions
Rights of belligerents. The London Times continues to enlighten the unhappy wretches of Lincoln's Cabinet, upon the rights of belligerents under the doctrines of the United States Government as laid down by Secretary Marcy. It brings before them the undeniable fact that the U, States have always been the especial champions of central rights on the ocean and of privateers. It also mentions a stunning fact, which had escaped our attention, that the United States had in the case of the King of Naples declined the right of a Government to blockade its own ports!
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8