hide Matching Documents

The documents where this entity occurs most often are shown below. Click on a document to open it.

Document Max. Freq Min. Freq
Robert Underwood Johnson, Clarence Clough Buell, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War. Volume 4. 9 5 Browse Search
Robert Underwood Johnson, Clarence Clough Buell, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War: The Opening Battles. Volume 1. 6 0 Browse Search
Robert Underwood Johnson, Clarence Clough Buell, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War: Volume 2. 6 6 Browse Search
Admiral David D. Porter, The Naval History of the Civil War. 6 2 Browse Search
Robert Underwood Johnson, Clarence Clough Buell, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War. Volume 3. 2 2 Browse Search
Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History (ed. Benson Lossing) 2 0 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Browsing named entities in Admiral David D. Porter, The Naval History of the Civil War.. You can also browse the collection for James Russell Soley or search for James Russell Soley in all documents.

Your search returned 4 results in 3 document sections:

Admiral David D. Porter, The Naval History of the Civil War., Chapter 12: fight between the Merrimac and Monitor, March 8, 1862. (search)
an at the wheel, who having no one to direct him, and doubtless being excited by the fall of his commanding officer, steered off on another course without any particular aim or object. This is substantially the view given of the occurrence by Prof. Soley in his work, The blockade and the cruisers, and he obtained his information from the late Commander Greene. Lieut. George U. Morris. (Acting commander of the Cumberland.) Prof. Soley further says: Seeing the Monitor draw off, Van Brunt,Prof. Soley further says: Seeing the Monitor draw off, Van Brunt, under the supposition that his protector was disabled and had left him, prepared for the worst, and made ready to destroy his ship; but at this point the Merrimac withdrew to Norfolk. Greene fired at her twice, or at most three times. He then returned to the Minnesota, and remained by her until she got afloat. This is no doubt a correct version of the affair. The Merrimac moved off (those on board of her glad to do so in an apparently creditable manner), knowing that if the battle lasted m
Admiral David D. Porter, The Naval History of the Civil War., chapter 48 (search)
y. If these officers were engaged in a bad cause, they were at least faithful to it in the extreme. They had succeeded far beyond their most sanguine expectations, having got their vessel to sea in spite of the watchful care of the American minister in London and the apparent zeal of the British Government to prevent it. How far Her Majesty's Government were sincere in their intentions can be seen from the following extract, which we give from the work of a clever naval writer, Professor J. Russell Soley, U. S. N.: The second cruiser built in England for the Confederates was the Alabama, whose career began in July, 1862. The attention of the Foreign Office had been first called to this vessel by a note from Mr. Adams on the 23d of June. The evidence then submitted as to her character was confined to a statement made by the Consul at Liverpool, of suspicious circumstances connected with the vessel. The communication was referred to the law officers of the Crown, who gave the
Admiral David D. Porter, The Naval History of the Civil War., Chapter 56: commerce-destroyers.-their inception, remarkable career, and ending. (search)
corded the Confederates by Great Britain was the Queen's proclamation of neutrality, forbidding either belligerent from taking prizes into British ports. It is difficult to understand how a nation can concede belligerent rights to another and recognize the seizure of neutral property — as did England and other powers-and yet maintain no official relations with her. The clearest and most convincing statement of this question is embraced in a work on The blockade and the cruisers, by Professor James R. Soley, U. S. N. A vast amount of indulgence was shown the Confederate cruisers in every stage of their proceedings, and it is not unlikely, if a similar state of affairs should ever again occur, that neutrals will find it necessary to draw the lines closer than heretofore, in order not to be liable to penalties which are apt to follow so liberal a course as was pursued towards the Confederates, during the American civil war, by certain European governments. So many arguments have been