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
United States (United States) 16,340 0 Browse Search
England (United Kingdom) 6,437 1 Browse Search
France (France) 2,462 0 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 2,310 0 Browse Search
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) 1,788 0 Browse Search
Europe 1,632 0 Browse Search
New England (United States) 1,606 0 Browse Search
Canada (Canada) 1,474 0 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 1,468 0 Browse Search
Mexico (Mexico, Mexico) 1,404 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History (ed. Benson Lossing). Search the whole document.

Found 72 total hits in 28 results.

1 2 3
United States (United States) (search for this): entry ames-fisher
He died in Dedham, July 4, 1808. Speech on Jay's treaty. The following are extracts from his speech made on April 28, 1796: The treaty is bad, fatally bad, is the cry. It sacrifices the interest, the honor, the independence of the United States, and the faith of our engagements to France. If we listen to the clamor of party intemperance, the evils are of a number not to be counted, and of a nature not to be borne, even in idea. The language of passion and exaggeration may silence . They would perceive it was their interest to make others respect — and they would, therefore, soon pay some respect themselves to — the obligations of good faith. It is painful — I hope it is superfluous — to make even the supposition that America should furnish the occasion of this opprobrium. No, let me not even imagine that a republican government, sprung, as our own is, from a people enlightened and uncorrupted, a government whose origin is right, and whose daily discipline is duty.
Algiers (Algeria) (search for this): entry ames-fisher
there are none when it is decried. It is the philosophy of politics, the religion of governments. It is observed by barbarians — a whiff of tobacco smoke or a string of beads gives not merely a binding force but sanctity to treaties. Even in Algiers a truce may be bought for money, but, when ratified, even Algiers is too wise or too just to disown and annul its obligation. Thus we see neither the ignorance of savages nor the principles of an association for piracy and rapine permit a natioAlgiers is too wise or too just to disown and annul its obligation. Thus we see neither the ignorance of savages nor the principles of an association for piracy and rapine permit a nation to despise its engagements. If. sir, there could be a resurrection from the foot of the gallows, if the victims of justice could live again, collect together and form a society, they would, however loath, soon find themselves obliged to make justice, that justice under which they fell, the fundamental law of their state. They would perceive it was their interest to make others respect — and they would, therefore, soon pay some respect themselves to — the obligations of good faith. It is <
West Indies (search for this): entry ames-fisher
f the treaty is bad, it will appear to be so in its mass. Evil, to a fatal extreme, if that be its tendency, requires no proof; it brings it. Extremes speak for themselves and make their own law. What if the direct voyage of American ships to Jamaica, with horses or lumber, might net 1 or 2 per centum more than the present trade to Surinam — would the proof of the fact avail anything in so grave a question as the violation of the public engagements? . . . Why do they complain that the West Indies are not laid open? Why do they lament that any restriction is stipulated on the commerce of the East Indies? Why do they pretend that, if they reject this and insist upon more, more will be accomplished? Let us be explicit — more would not satisfy. If all was granted, would not a treaty of amity with Great Britain still be obnoxious? Have we not this instant heard it urged against our envoy that he was not ardent enough in his hatred of Great Britain? A treaty of amity is condemned
Jamaica, L. I. (New York, United States) (search for this): entry ames-fisher
an curiosity, we are employed to gather piecemeal, and article by article, from the instrument a justification for the deed by trivial calculations of commercial profit and loss. This is little worthy of the subject, of this body, or of the nation. If the treaty is bad, it will appear to be so in its mass. Evil, to a fatal extreme, if that be its tendency, requires no proof; it brings it. Extremes speak for themselves and make their own law. What if the direct voyage of American ships to Jamaica, with horses or lumber, might net 1 or 2 per centum more than the present trade to Surinam — would the proof of the fact avail anything in so grave a question as the violation of the public engagements? . . . Why do they complain that the West Indies are not laid open? Why do they lament that any restriction is stipulated on the commerce of the East Indies? Why do they pretend that, if they reject this and insist upon more, more will be accomplished? Let us be explicit — more would no
East India (search for this): entry ames-fisher
requires no proof; it brings it. Extremes speak for themselves and make their own law. What if the direct voyage of American ships to Jamaica, with horses or lumber, might net 1 or 2 per centum more than the present trade to Surinam — would the proof of the fact avail anything in so grave a question as the violation of the public engagements? . . . Why do they complain that the West Indies are not laid open? Why do they lament that any restriction is stipulated on the commerce of the East Indies? Why do they pretend that, if they reject this and insist upon more, more will be accomplished? Let us be explicit — more would not satisfy. If all was granted, would not a treaty of amity with Great Britain still be obnoxious? Have we not this instant heard it urged against our envoy that he was not ardent enough in his hatred of Great Britain? A treaty of amity is condemned because it was not made by a foe and in the spirit of one. The same gentleman, at the same instant, repeats
Europe (search for this): entry ames-fisher
two rules, which ought to guide us in this case. The treaty must appear to be bad, not merely in the petty details, but in its character, principle, and mass. And in the next place, this ought to be ascertained by the decided and general concurrence of the enlightened public. I confess there seems to be something very like ridicule thrown over the debate by the discussion of the articles in detail. The undecided point is, shall we break our faith? And while our country and enlightened Europe await the issue with more than curiosity, we are employed to gather piecemeal, and article by article, from the instrument a justification for the deed by trivial calculations of commercial profit and loss. This is little worthy of the subject, of this body, or of the nation. If the treaty is bad, it will appear to be so in its mass. Evil, to a fatal extreme, if that be its tendency, requires no proof; it brings it. Extremes speak for themselves and make their own law. What if the direct
Surinam (Surinam) (search for this): entry ames-fisher
ent a justification for the deed by trivial calculations of commercial profit and loss. This is little worthy of the subject, of this body, or of the nation. If the treaty is bad, it will appear to be so in its mass. Evil, to a fatal extreme, if that be its tendency, requires no proof; it brings it. Extremes speak for themselves and make their own law. What if the direct voyage of American ships to Jamaica, with horses or lumber, might net 1 or 2 per centum more than the present trade to Surinam — would the proof of the fact avail anything in so grave a question as the violation of the public engagements? . . . Why do they complain that the West Indies are not laid open? Why do they lament that any restriction is stipulated on the commerce of the East Indies? Why do they pretend that, if they reject this and insist upon more, more will be accomplished? Let us be explicit — more would not satisfy. If all was granted, would not a treaty of amity with Great Britain still be obn
France (France) (search for this): entry ames-fisher
Jay's treaty. The following are extracts from his speech made on April 28, 1796: The treaty is bad, fatally bad, is the cry. It sacrifices the interest, the honor, the independence of the United States, and the faith of our engagements to France. If we listen to the clamor of party intemperance, the evils are of a number not to be counted, and of a nature not to be borne, even in idea. The language of passion and exaggeration may silence that of sober reason in other places; it has nothis hatred of Great Britain? A treaty of amity is condemned because it was not made by a foe and in the spirit of one. The same gentleman, at the same instant, repeats a very prevailing objection, that no treaty should be made with the enemy of France. No treaty, exclaim others, should be made with a monarch or a despot; there will be no naval security while those sea-robbers domineer on the ocean; their den must be destroyed; that nation must be extirpated. I like this, sir, because it is
England (United Kingdom) (search for this): entry ames-fisher
be accomplished? Let us be explicit — more would not satisfy. If all was granted, would not a treaty of amity with Great Britain still be obnoxious? Have we not this instant heard it urged against our envoy that he was not ardent enough in his hatred of Great Britain? A treaty of amity is condemned because it was not made by a foe and in the spirit of one. The same gentleman, at the same instant, repeats a very prevailing objection, that no treaty should be made with the enemy of France., what our own example evinces, the states of Barbary are unsuspected of. No, let me rather make the supposition that Great Britain refuses to execute the treaty after we have done everything to carry it into effect. Is there any language of reproal them, wherever an Englishman might travel, shame would stick to him — he would disown his country? You would exclaim: England, proudly of your wealth and arrogant in the possession of power, blush for these distinctions, which become the vehicles
Dedham (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): entry ames-fisher
Ames, Fisher, 1758-1808 Orator and statesman; born in Dedham, Mass., April 9, 1758; was graduated at Harvard College in 1774; taught school until 1781; then began the practice of law: and soon displayed rare oratorical powers. He wrote political essays for Boston newspapers, over the signatures of Brutus and Camillus. In Congress from 1789 until 1797 he was always distinguished for his great business talent, exalted patriotism, and brilliant oratory. Ardently devoted to Washington, persh in Congress in favor of Jay's Treaty, on april 28, 1795, that an opposition member moved to postpone the decision of the question that they might not vote under the influence of a sensibility which their calm judgment might condemn. He died in Dedham, July 4, 1808. Speech on Jay's treaty. The following are extracts from his speech made on April 28, 1796: The treaty is bad, fatally bad, is the cry. It sacrifices the interest, the honor, the independence of the United States, and the
1 2 3