hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity (current method)
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in descending order. Sort in ascending 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) 54 0 Browse Search
Seward 36 32 Browse Search
North Carolina (North Carolina, United States) 20 0 Browse Search
Adams 16 16 Browse Search
Floyd 15 3 Browse Search
Fortress Monroe (Virginia, United States) 14 0 Browse Search
France (France) 12 0 Browse Search
M. De Bebian 12 0 Browse Search
Richard L. Bohannon 12 0 Browse Search
Wilkes 11 11 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: February 5, 1862., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 176 total hits in 44 results.

1 2 3 4 5
Wilkes (search for this): article 19
affirms that no instructions were given to Capt. Wilkes which authorized him to act in the manner htates insisted on maintaining the action of Capt. Wilkes, the United States would be abandoning theiclares that no directions had been given to Capt. Wilkes, or to any other naval officer, to arrest tates Government had alleged that, although Captain Wilkes had no previous instruction for that purpohich had thus sanctioned the proceeding of Captain Wilkes, would have become responsible for the oriof Her Majesty's Government, to that which Captain Wilkes had done. Mr. Seward, in his answer, poinits nature, has been termed a disavowal of Captain Wilkes, is singularly enough dated on the very saNovember, of the circumstances under which Captain Wilkes had perpetrated the outrage. The act of CCaptain Wilkes was either legal or illegal, and the principles and precedents by which its legal or iby Mr. Seward, of the outrage committed by Captain Wilkes; this is the declaration which, in the nat[1 more...]
Trent (search for this): article 19
e a copy of a note which I have this morning received from Mr. Seward, in answer to your Lordship's dispatch of the 30th of last month, relative to the removal of Mr. Mason, Mr. Sidell, Mr. Macfarland, and Mr. Eustis, from the British mail packet Trent. The note contains a very long and very elaborate dissertation on the questions of international law involved in the case. I have not time, before the departure of the messenger, to weigh the arguments, or to estimate precisely the force ofrting a possible conflict. And then he proceeded to speak of the Trent affair. Would not any sane man, who, a few sentences before, had been speaking of the currents likely to bring the two countries into collision, yet who knew that, from this Trent outrage, a current mighty as the Golf stream itself was then falling from the American shores to England the causes, it not arrested, of certain hostility between America and England, have said one word, one little word, to stem his course?
M. Thouvenel (search for this): article 19
nt of the United States insisted on maintaining the action of Capt. Wilkes, the United States would be abandoning their doctrine and adopting ours.--Mr. Adams asked me a further question, which he said I might decline to answer. It was whether, if Lord Lyons came away, a declaration of war would be the immediate consequence. I told him nothing was decided on that point; we should wait for the reply from America and then decide upon our course. I stated to Mr. Adams the substance of M. Thouvenel's dispatch to M. Mercier as I had heard it from M. de Flahault. Mr. Adams said that the French Government had always been very consistent in their maintenance of the rights of neutrals. He added that he could not pay our Government the same compliment. I said I would dispense with compliments if this matter could be amicably arranged. We parted on very friendly terms, I am, &c., (Signed) Russell. Lord Lyons to Earl Russell (received January 9) Washington, Dec. 27, 1861. My Lo
United States (United States) (search for this): article 19
dly Power during the struggle in which the United States are engaged. Mr. Seward gives as instancethe export of arms and ammunition to the Confederate States, I had lately read the opinion of the At or the import, than to the ports of the Confederate States which were blockaded. Mr. Adams admitte He thought that if the Government of the United States insisted on maintaining the action of Capt. Wilkes, the United States would be abandoning their doctrine and adopting ours.--Mr. Adams asked expect, I find that the Government of the United States distinctly and unequivocally declares thato be afterwards carried into a port of the United States, the Government, which had thus sanctionedht to expect the same reparation which the United States, as an independent State, should expect frll be desirable that the commanders of the United States cruisers should be instructed not to repears, and even those most favorable to the Confederate States, designate this ship under the name of p
Southampton (United Kingdom) (search for this): article 19
een under weigh within the time at which it would have been possible for the Federal Government to have sent here another ship, after the news of his arrival at Southampton had reached Washington. The Nashville carries, we believe, but two guns, and the Tuscarora nine. The Yankee Captain accordingly anchors in Southampton waters.Southampton waters. In this state of things the Nashville has three courses before her. She might endeavor to escape the Tuscarora in the dead of night, or she might wait until the expected Sumter move in sight, and then boldly steam out, in defiance of the Tuscarora; or, thirdly, she must lay her account with being blockaded during the remainde Federal mercantile vessels which she had sunk. It is stated, perhaps without sufficient authority, that she has again left Cadiz, and may daily be expected at Southampton. She is said to carry twelve guns and a complement of 140 men. Possibly, on her first appearance in the offing, the Nashville will steam out of dock; and the T
Martinique (search for this): article 19
ad been different from that of France and Holland, or of Spain. The Sumter had been refused coal from the Government stores of Trinidad, but had been allowed to get coal and provisions from private merchants. The same thing had taken place at Martinique and at Curacoa. I did not find that the rule of twenty-four hours had been observed in practice, but there would be little difficulty in coming to an agreement on this point. In regard to the export of arms and ammunition to the Confederaip — the Iroquois, for example — would have been admitted to the hospitalities of that port. The hospitality extended to the Southern Commissioners while at Havana, the interest displayed by the people and the authorities of Port Royal, in Martinique, in the recent escape of the Sumter from under the guns of the Iroquois, and the subsequent admission of the Sumter into Cadiz, show very clearly that England is not the only country in which the Confederates have a recognized belligerent statu
Trinidad (Trinidad and Tobago) (search for this): article 19
ower during the struggle in which the United States are engaged. Mr. Seward gives as instances the case of communication to the Confederate authorities by Mr. Bunch; the admission of the Sumter privateer to purchase coal and other provisions at Trinidad, in contra distinction, as he said, to the conduct of every European State, and the arrival in the Southern States of vessels laden with arms and ammunition from England. Mr. Seward then proceeds to the case of the Trent, from which ship two the case of Mr. Bunch. With regard to the Confederate privateer, I said that I could not see that our conduct had been different from that of France and Holland, or of Spain. The Sumter had been refused coal from the Government stores of Trinidad, but had been allowed to get coal and provisions from private merchants. The same thing had taken place at Martinique and at Curacoa. I did not find that the rule of twenty-four hours had been observed in practice, but there would be little di
England (United Kingdom) (search for this): article 19
the James Adger. Mr. Seward then proceeds to declare that the American Government value highly the friendship of Great Britain and lament that certain causes of differences have arisen, owing, as Mr. Seward imagines, to the want of attention onments, or to estimate precisely the force of the expressions used. But as Mr Seward admits that reparation is due to Great Britain, and consents to deliver the four prisoners to me, I consider that the demands of Her Majesty's Government are so farrnment has a right to expect the same reparation which the United States, as an independent State, should expect from Great Britain, or from any other friendly nation, in a similar case. Her Majesty's Government having carefully taken into theiustice, and then employed the advantage of his position to remove those immediate causes of offence and irritation to Great Britain which he so strongly deprecated. Mr. Seward did exactly the reverse. He intimated that a certain prospective an
Port Royal (South Carolina, United States) (search for this): article 19
hat this ship has been regularly commissioned as a Confederate war ship. If this be so, and that the Spanish authorities are aware of the fact, the Sumter has been admitted into Cadiz harbor on the footing of a Confederate cruiser, the same way as a Federal war ship — the Iroquois, for example — would have been admitted to the hospitalities of that port. The hospitality extended to the Southern Commissioners while at Havana, the interest displayed by the people and the authorities of Port Royal, in Martinique, in the recent escape of the Sumter from under the guns of the Iroquois, and the subsequent admission of the Sumter into Cadiz, show very clearly that England is not the only country in which the Confederates have a recognized belligerent status, or where there is a determination not to permit any interference with the admitted rights of neutrals. If the Federal Government is wise, they will profit by the lesson which the event we have referred to teaches. If the Feder
Havana, N. Y. (New York, United States) (search for this): article 19
r holds a commission from the Confederate Government, and it is said that this ship has been regularly commissioned as a Confederate war ship. If this be so, and that the Spanish authorities are aware of the fact, the Sumter has been admitted into Cadiz harbor on the footing of a Confederate cruiser, the same way as a Federal war ship — the Iroquois, for example — would have been admitted to the hospitalities of that port. The hospitality extended to the Southern Commissioners while at Havana, the interest displayed by the people and the authorities of Port Royal, in Martinique, in the recent escape of the Sumter from under the guns of the Iroquois, and the subsequent admission of the Sumter into Cadiz, show very clearly that England is not the only country in which the Confederates have a recognized belligerent status, or where there is a determination not to permit any interference with the admitted rights of neutrals. If the Federal Government is wise, they will profit by the
1 2 3 4 5