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) 88 0 Browse Search
France (France) 86 0 Browse Search
Redmond Burke 58 0 Browse Search
J. E. B. Stuart 21 1 Browse Search
North Carolina (North Carolina, United States) 14 0 Browse Search
Cornelius Collins 14 0 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 14 0 Browse Search
Nash Taylor 12 0 Browse Search
Missouri (Missouri, United States) 12 0 Browse Search
England (United Kingdom) 12 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in The Daily Dispatch: December 16, 1861., [Electronic resource].

Found 1,569 total hits in 808 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
William H. Seward (search for this): article 1
is that out of which the constitution of this Union arose — namely, American independence — independence of all foreign control, alliance or influence. Next above it lies the conviction that neither peace, nor safety, nor public liberty, nor prosperity, nor greatness, nor empire, can be attained here with the sacrifice of the unity of the people of North America. Those who, in a frenzy of passion, are building expectations on other principles do not know what they are doing. Whenever one part of this Union shall be found assuming bonds of dependence or of fraternity towards any foreign people, to the exclusion of the sympathies of their native land, then, even if not before, that spirit will be reawakened which brought the States of this republic into existence, and which will preserve them united until the common destiny which it opened to them shall be fully and completely realized. I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, Wm. H. Seward. William L. Dayton, &c., &c
nderstood, while implying a disposition on the part of France to accord belligerent rights to their Sargents, does not name, specify or even indicate one such belligerent right. On the other hand, the rights which it asserts that France expects as a neutral, from the United States, as a belligerent, are even less than this Government, on the 25th of April, instructed you to concede and guarantee to her by treaty, as a friend. On that day we offered to her our adhesion to the declaration of Paris, which contains four propositions — namely: 1. That privateering shall be abolished. 2. That a neutral flag covers enemy's goods not contraband of war. 3. That goods of a neutral, not contraband, shall not be confiscated, though found in an enemy's vessel. 4. That blockades, in order to be lawful, must be maintained by competent force. We have always, when at war, conceded the three last of these rights to neutrals a fortiori, we could not when at peace deny them to friendly nations.
April 25th (search for this): article 1
, that it need not disturb the good relations which have so long and so happily subsisted between the United States and France. The paper, as understood, while implying a disposition on the part of France to accord belligerent rights to their Sargents, does not name, specify or even indicate one such belligerent right. On the other hand, the rights which it asserts that France expects as a neutral, from the United States, as a belligerent, are even less than this Government, on the 25th of April, instructed you to concede and guarantee to her by treaty, as a friend. On that day we offered to her our adhesion to the declaration of Paris, which contains four propositions — namely: 1. That privateering shall be abolished. 2. That a neutral flag covers enemy's goods not contraband of war. 3. That goods of a neutral, not contraband, shall not be confiscated, though found in an enemy's vessel. 4. That blockades, in order to be lawful, must be maintained by competent force. We hav
y case, not only shall we allow no privateer or national vessel to violate the rights of friendly nations as I have thus described them, but we shall also employ all our naval force to prevent the insurgents from violating them, just as much as we do to prevent them from violating the laws of our own country. What, then, does France claim of us that we do not accord to her? Nothing. What do we refuse to France by declining to receive the communication sent to us through the hands of Mr. Mercier? Nothing but the privilege of telling us that we are at war when we maintain we are at peace, and that she is neutral when we prefer to recognize her as a friend. Of course, it is understood that on this occasion we reserve, as on all others, our right to suppress the insurrection by naval as well as by military power, and for that purpose to close such of our ports as have fallen or may fall into the hands of the insurgents, either directly or in the more lenient and equitable form
William L. Dayton (search for this): article 1
is that out of which the constitution of this Union arose — namely, American independence — independence of all foreign control, alliance or influence. Next above it lies the conviction that neither peace, nor safety, nor public liberty, nor prosperity, nor greatness, nor empire, can be attained here with the sacrifice of the unity of the people of North America. Those who, in a frenzy of passion, are building expectations on other principles do not know what they are doing. Whenever one part of this Union shall be found assuming bonds of dependence or of fraternity towards any foreign people, to the exclusion of the sympathies of their native land, then, even if not before, that spirit will be reawakened which brought the States of this republic into existence, and which will preserve them united until the common destiny which it opened to them shall be fully and completely realized. I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, Wm. H. Seward. William L. Dayton, &c., &c
United States (United States) (search for this): article 1
rned to suppose that any war exists in the United States. Certainly there cannot be two belligerenen, one political Power, namely — the United States of America--competent to make war and peace, anditself, but it certainly cannot expect the United States to accept its decision upon a question vital to their national existence. The United States will not refine upon the question when and hs, neutrals, friends, or even allies.--The United States will maintain and defend their sovereignty long and so happily subsisted between the United States and France. The paper, as understood,that France expects as a neutral, from the United States, as a belligerent, are even less than thisent case. We hold all the citizens of the United States, loyal or disloyal, alike included by the fference between the two governments. The United States will hope that France will not think it neicate to us. But, however this may be, the United States will not anticipate any occasion for a cha
North America (search for this): article 1
deeper than the attachment to any local or sectional interest, or partisan pride or individual ambition — deeper than any other sentiment — is that out of which the constitution of this Union arose — namely, American independence — independence of all foreign control, alliance or influence. Next above it lies the conviction that neither peace, nor safety, nor public liberty, nor prosperity, nor greatness, nor empire, can be attained here with the sacrifice of the unity of the people of North America. Those who, in a frenzy of passion, are building expectations on other principles do not know what they are doing. Whenever one part of this Union shall be found assuming bonds of dependence or of fraternity towards any foreign people, to the exclusion of the sympathies of their native land, then, even if not before, that spirit will be reawakened which brought the States of this republic into existence, and which will preserve them united until the common destiny which it opened to t
France (France) (search for this): article 1
can easily see how the inadvertence occurred.--France seems to have mistaken a mere casual and ephemh as have sometimes happened in the history of France herself, for a war which has flagrantly separatwo which seem so to construe appearances, and France is one of them. Are the judgments of these twappily subsisted between the United States and France. The paper, as understood, while implyinge other hand, the rights which it asserts that France expects as a neutral, from the United States, rthrowing it, respect those rights in favor of France and of every other friendly nation. In any calaws of our own country. What, then, does France claim of us that we do not accord to her? Nothing. What do we refuse to France by declining to receive the communication sent to us through the hgovernments. The United States will hope that France will not think it necessary to adhere to and pinfluence of any foreign State. This is so in France. It is not less so in this country. Down dee[2 more...]
this outside declaration, to be made simultaneously with the execution of the convention, unless we intended that they (England and France) shall be made parties to our controversy, and that the very facts of your hesitation was an additional reason why they should insist upon making such contemporaneous declarations as they proposed. These remarks of Mr. Thouvenel are certainly distinguished by entire frankness. It shall be my effort to reply to them with moderation and candor. In 1856 France, Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Sardinia, and Turkey, being assembled in Congress at Paris, with a view to modify the law of nations so as to meliorate the evils of maritime war, adopted and set forth a declaration, which is in the following words:-- 1. Privateering is and remains abolished. 2. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war. 3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under enemy'
William H. Seward (search for this): article 2
s of Marque. the position of the United States on the question — the action of England and France in regard to the treaty of Paris.--the Final Answer of Mr. Seward, &c. In our edition of Friday last appeared a special telegraphic dispatch, briefly referring to the subjoined letter. We publish it entire, as it is a matter of some importance at this time: Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton. Department of State,Washington, Sept. 10, 1861. Sir: Your dispatch of August 22. (No. 35) has been received. I learn from it that Mr. Thouvenel is unwilling to negotiate for an accession by the United States to the declaration of the Congress of Paris co the Emperor, is deemed inadmissible by the President of the United States; and if it shall be insisted upon, you will then inform him that you are instructed for the present to desist from further negotiations on the subject involved. I am, sir, your obedient servant, William H. Seward. Wm. L. Dayton, Esq., &c., &c., &c.
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...