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 a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: December 16, 1861., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 150 total hits in 14 results.

1 2
Russia (Russia) (search for this): article 2
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's flag. 4. Blockades, in
France (France) (search for this): article 2
es on the question — the action of England and France in regard to the treaty of Paris.--the Final Anvention standing alone might bind England and France to pursue and punish the privateers of the Souese people as we choose, and they (England and France) could only express their regrets on the scoreion, unless we intended that they (England and France) shall be made parties to our controversy, and them with moderation and candor. In 1856 France, Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Sardinia, andnd eternal in its application and obligation. France especially invited the United States to accedeualifying article, limiting the obligations of France to the United States to a narrower range than ty towards the United States. I know that France is a friend, and means to be just and equal tothe unqualified execution of the Convention by France, then the fault clearly must be inherent in th parties to it have acceded. We know that France has a high and generous ambition. We shall wa[13 more...]
England (United Kingdom) (search for this): article 2
arrived. The obscurity of the text of the declaration which Mr. Thouvenel submits to us is sufficiently relieved by his verbal explanations.--According to your report of the conversation, before referred to, he said that both France and Great Britain had already announced that they would take no part in our domestic controversy, and they thought a frank and open declaration in advance of the execution of the projected convention might save difficulty and misconception hereafter. He furthsist 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:--
imultaneously 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's flag. 4. Blockades, in order to
United States (United States) (search for this): article 2
on date of this day between France and the United States, the undersigned declares, in execution of the internal conflict now existing in the United States. My dispatch of the 17th day of AugusFrance are anxious to have adhesion of the United States to the declaration of Paris, yet that theyobligation. France especially invited the United States to accede to these articles. An invitatioforty-one of the powers thus invited. The United States hesitated, but only for the purpose of mak limiting the obligations of France to the United States to a narrower range than the obligations wand peculiar treaty between France and the United States only. Even as such a treaty it would be ued by us from any similar duty towards the United States. I know that France is a friend, and or such an intervention on the part of the United States. The whole of this long correspondence haeemed inadmissible by the President of the United States; and if it shall be insisted upon, you wil[5 more...]
Turquie (Turkey) (search for this): article 2
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's flag. 4. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be ef
William L. Dayton (search for this): article 2
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 the confiscation of property of non-belligerent citizens and subjects in maritime war. You will inform Mr. Thouvenel that the proposed declaration, on the part of 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.
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.
ourse. He added that although England and France are anxious to have adhesion of the United States to the declaration of Paris, yet that they would rather dispense with it altogether than be drawn into our domestic controversy. He insisted somewha obligations of the declaration of the Congress of Paris in regard to other Powers. Thus carried out, the declaration of Paris would be expounded so as to excclude all internal conflicts in States from the application of the articles of that celebrument further, I might add that addition, insurrection and treason would find in such a new reading of the declaration of Paris, encouragement which would tend to render the most stable and even the most beneficent systems of government insecure. Ner motive will remain unsatisfied, and it will lose none of its force. We shall be ready to accede to the declaration of Paris with every Power that will agree to adopt its principles for the government of its relations to us, and which shall be co
Thouvenel (search for this): article 2
t 22. (No. 35) has been received. I learn from it that Mr. Thouvenel is unwilling to negotiate for an accession by the Unitein our country," and that to render the matter certain, Mr. Thouvenel proposes to make a written declaration simultaneously wme a copy of a note to this effect, addressed to you by Mr. Thouvenel and have also represented to me an official conversatio with you upon the same subject. The declaration which Mr. Thouvenel thus proposes to make is in these words: Draft of The obscurity of the text of the declaration which Mr. Thouvenel submits to us is sufficiently relieved by his verbal exus declarations as they proposed. These remarks of Mr. Thouvenel are certainly distinguished by entire frankness. It shen as such a treaty it would be unequal. Assuming that Mr. Thouvenel's reasoning is correct, we should, in that case, be conzens and subjects in maritime war. You will inform Mr. Thouvenel that the proposed declaration, on the part of the Emper
1 2