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
Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History (ed. Benson Lossing) 6,437 1 Browse Search
Richard Hakluyt, The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques, and Discoveries of the English Nation 1,858 0 Browse Search
Knight's Mechanical Encyclopedia (ed. Knight) 766 0 Browse Search
Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 1. (ed. Frank Moore) 310 0 Browse Search
Admiral David D. Porter, The Naval History of the Civil War. 302 0 Browse Search
Raphael Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat During the War Between the States 300 0 Browse Search
Hon. J. L. M. Curry , LL.D., William Robertson Garrett , A. M. , Ph.D., Confederate Military History, a library of Confederate States Military History: Volume 1.1, Legal Justification of the South in secession, The South as a factor in the territorial expansion of the United States (ed. Clement Anselm Evans) 266 0 Browse Search
Henry Morton Stanley, Dorothy Stanley, The Autobiography of Sir Henry Morton Stanley 224 0 Browse Search
George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent, Vol. 5, 13th edition. 222 0 Browse Search
Horace Greeley, The American Conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860-65: its Causes, Incidents, and Results: Intended to exhibit especially its moral and political phases with the drift and progress of American opinion respecting human slavery from 1776 to the close of the War for the Union. Volume I. 214 0 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Browsing named entities in Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. You can also browse the collection for England (United Kingdom) or search for England (United Kingdom) in all documents.

Your search returned 80 results in 13 document sections:

1 2
exico, we respected private property of the enemy; when in 1781 Great Britain, attempting to reduce her revolted American colonies, took posserting ruler of the land. At a later date, war existed between Great Britain and the independent states of the Union, during which Great BriGreat Britain got possession of various points within the states. At the Treaty of Ghent, 1815, by which peace was restored to the two countries, it tification. John Quincy Adams, first as United States minister to England, and subsequently as United States Secretary of State, conducted witution as it might favor or injure one section or another, and Great Britain was, from a sense of right, compelled to recognize the wrong doly to define their position relative to the contending powers. Great Britain, adopting a position of neutrality, and recognizing both as beloffer, with the proviso, was honorably declined by both France and England. In the matter of the exchange of prisoners, which became impor
ant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; to raise and support armies; to provide and maintain a navy; to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. . . . This is the grant of power under which the government of the United States makes war upon a foreign nation. If it had not been given in the Constitution, there would not have been any power under which to conduct a foreign war, such as that of 1812 against Great Britain or that of 1846 against Mexico. In such conflicts the nations engaged recognize each other as separate sovereignties and as public enemies, and use against each other all the powers granted by the law of nations. One of these powers is the confiscation of the property of the enemy. Under the law of nations of modern days this confiscation is limited in extent, made under a certain form, and for a defined object. For the modern laws of war one must look to the usages of civilized st
ction and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest crimes. Nor was this declaration of the want of power or disposition to interfere with our social system confined to a state of peace. Both before and after the actual commencement of hostilities, the Executive of the United States repeated in formal official communications to the cabinets of Great Britain and France, that it was utterly without constitutional power to do the act which it subsequently committed, and that in no possible event, whether the secession of these states resulted in the establishment of a separate Confederacy or in the restoration of the Union, was there any authority by virtue of which it could either restore a disaffected state to the Union by force of arms, or make any change in any of its institutions. I refer especially for the verification of this assertion
measures adopted might have been excused, though nothing could have justified the barbarities which were practiced; notable as the city had always been for freedom from tumult, and occupied as it then was mainly by women and children, nothing can extenuate the wanton insults and outrages heaped upon them. That those not informed of the character of the citizens may the better comprehend it, a brief reference is made to its history. When Canada, then a French colony, was conquered by Great Britain, many of the inhabitants of greatest influence and highest cultivation, in a spirit of loyalty to their flag, migrated to the wilds of Louisiana. Some of them established themselves in and about New Orleans, and their numerous descendants formed, down to a late period, the controlling element in the body politic. Even after they had ceased, because of large immigration, to control in the commercial and political affairs of the city, their social standard was still the rule. No people
carrying trade, in which the United States stood second only to Great Britain, passed rapidly into other hands. The Sumter, while doing all to the abuse of the Confederate government, as well as that of Great Britain, the one for contracting for the building of the Alabama and thed it, in that condition, to make war upon a country with which Great Britain was at peace. Referring to the Alabama, as she was when she question. They have been guilty of no offense against the laws of England, and they have committed no act which would bring them within the provisions of a treaty between Great Britain and the United States for the surrender of the offenders; and her Majesty's Government are, therWachusett before a court-martial. M. Bernard's Neutrality of Great Britain During the American Civil War. The commander of the Wachusehe last but not the first appearance of the Confederate flag in Great Britain; the first vessel of the Confederate government which unfurled
-called pirates Seeks iron-plated vessels in England statement of Lord Russell duty of neutrals rs of her fleets came from the seaports of Great Britain and Germany; in a word, whatever could be vernment assumes to hold the Government of Great Britain responsible for the captures made by vessehe United States against the government of Great Britain for acts involving a breach of neutrality n in the navy. His vessel, although built in England like many of our cruisers, was not armed or ether, the great crime of the government of Great Britain in the eyes of the government of the Unite which prizes could be taken. In that war Great Britain did not attempt to blockade all the ports Majesty's government could not admit that Great Britain had failed to discharge toward the United Geneva Conference ensued. That decided that England should have fulfilled her duties as a neutralmerican tonnage was second only to that of Great Britain, and we were competing with her for the fi[19 more...]
y have, to the loss and detriment of the British nation, scrupulously observed the duties of Great Britain to a friendly state. The severity of the distress thus alluded to was such, both in GreaGreat Britain and France, as to produce an intervention of the governments of those countries to alleviate it. Instead, however, of adopting those measures required in the exercise of justice to the Confiven respectful consideration to the desire informally expressed to me by the Governments of Great Britain and France for some further relaxation of the blockade in favor of that trade. They are notitiative in all actions touching the contest on this continent to the two powers just named [Great Britain and France], who were recognized to have the largest interest involved. By the preceding extracts the demands of the governments of Great Britain and France for increased facilities by which to obtain a greater supply of cotton are evident; at the same time the determination of the governm
of European nations: following the example of England and France different conditions of the belliquences the chief cause of the war between Great Britain and the United States in 1812; they also fespondence between the cabinets of France, Great Britain, and Russia, relative to a mediation betweof conciliation and peace. The reply of Great Britain, through Lord John Russell, on November 13of the good offices of France, Russia, and Great Britain. It has already been stated that, by ce, placed it in the power of either France or England to obstruct at pleasure the recognition to whation, scrupulously observed the duties of Great Britain toward a friendly state. It is not nec the United States that he had sent agents to England, and that others would go to France, to purchen the Confederate government purchased in Great Britain, as a neutral country (with strict observahe law of nations and the municipal law of Great Britain), vessels which were subsequently armed an[8 more...]
bodied in the orders issued from the War Department and from the headquarters in the field, and no order was ever issued in conflict with its humane provisions. Nevertheless, the government of the United States, forgetful of the conduct of Great Britain toward her revolted colonies, apparently refused all consideration of the question of exchange of prisoners, as if impressed with the idea that it would derogate from the dignity of its position to accept any interchange of courtesy. An exch among the Northern people at the conduct of their government, it was forced to yield its absurd pretensions, and on July 22, 1862, a cartel for the exchange of prisoners was executed, based on the cartel of 1812 between the United States and Great Britain. In accordance with these terms an exchange commenced, and by the middle of August most of the officers of rank on either side, who had been for any long period in captivity, were released. On the same day on which the cartel was signed,
throw down your arms and disperse! he expressed the same conditions which were offered to us in all our negotiations with the President of the United States and his generals. Does any one doubt that Major Pitcairn meant subjugation, or that Great Britain meant subjugation? Let them as dispassionately construe the government of the United States in its declarations to us. Several efforts were made by us to communicate with the authorities at Washington without success. Commissioners wereas for us to deal with the problems before us, and leave to posterity questions which they might solve, though we could not; that, in the struggle for independence by our colonial fathers, had failure instead of success attended their effort, Great Britain, instead of a commerce which has largely contributed to her prosperity, would have had the heavy expense of numerous garrisons, to hold in subjection a people who deserved to be free and had resolved not to be subject. Our conference ended w
1 2