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
Joseph R. Anderson 35 1 Browse Search
Scott 34 32 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 14 0 Browse Search
Fort Pickens (Florida, United States) 14 0 Browse Search
McClellan 12 0 Browse Search
Weldon, N. C. (North Carolina, United States) 10 0 Browse Search
James Buchanan 10 0 Browse Search
Bennett 9 1 Browse Search
Holt 9 9 Browse Search
Virginia (Virginia, United States) 8 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in The Daily Dispatch: November 10, 1862., [Electronic resource].

Found 565 total hits in 251 results.

... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
May, 1 AD (search for this): article 6
would be to send a fast side-wheel mercantile steamer from New York with the reinforcement. Accordingly the "Star of the West" was selected for the duty. The substitution of this mercantile steamer for the Brooklyn, which would have been able to defend herself in case of attack, was reluctantly yielded by me to the high military judgment of Gen. Scott. The change of programme required a brief space of time, but the Star of the West left New York for Charleston on the evening of the 5th of Jan. On the very day however, when this ill-fated steamer left New York, a telegram was dispatched by General Scott to Colonel Scott to countermand her departure; but it did not reach its destination until after she had gone to sea. The reason for this countermand shall be stated in the language of Secretary Holt, to be found in a letter addressed by him to Mr. Thompson, the late Secretary of the interior, on the 5th of March, 1861, and published in the National Intelligence. Mr. Holt says:
November, 1 AD (search for this): article 6
g, was fired upon in the harbor of Charleston by order of Gov. Pickens. Immediately after this outrage Major Anderson sent a flag to the Governor stating that he presumed the act had been unauthorized, and for that reason he had not opened fire from Fort Sumter on the adjacent batteries, but demanding its disavowal, and if this were not sent in a reasonable time he would consider it war, and fire on any vessel that attempted to leave the harbor. Two days after this occurrence, on the 11th of January, Governor Pickens had the audacity to demand of Major Anderson the surrender of the fort. In his answer of the same date the Major made the following proposition: "Should your Excellency deem fit, previous to a resort to arms, to refer this matter to Washington, it would afford me the sincerest pleasure to depute one of my officers to accompany any messenger you may deem proper to be the bearer of your demand." This proposition was promptly accepted by the Governor, and, in p
August, 2 AD (search for this): article 6
ver propose to violate this truce during its existence? If he did, I am not now, and never was, aware of the fact. Indeed, I think he would have been one of the last men in the world to propose such a measure. Colonel Hayne did not deliver the letter which he bore from Governor Pickens, demanding the surrender of the fort, to the President until the 31st of January. The document containing the reasons for this worrying delay were communicated to Congress in a special message of the 8th of February, to which I refer the reader. On the 5th of February, the Secretary of War, under the instructions of the President, gave a peremptory refusal to this demand in an able and comprehensive letter, reviewing the whole subject, explaining and justifying the conduct of the President throughout. Its concluding sentence is both eloquent and emphatic. "If (says Mr. Holt) with all the multiplied proofs which exist of the President's anxiety for peace, and of the earnestness with which he
December, 2 AD (search for this): article 6
he truce) had passed away, Secretaries Holt and Toucey, Capt. Ward, of the navy, and myself, with the knowledge of the President, settled upon the employment, under the Captain, of three or four steamers belonging to the Coast Survey, but he was kept back by the truce." A strange inconsistency. The truce had expired with Mr. Holt's letter to Col. Hayne on the 5th of February, and Gen. Scott in his statement says:-- "It would have been easy to reinforce this fort down to about the 12th of February." Why, then, did not the reinforcements proceed? This was simply because of communications from Major Anderson. It was most fortunate that they did not proceed; because the 3 or 4 small steamers which were to bear them would never have reached the fort, and in the attempt must have been captured or destroyed. The vast inadequacy of the force provided to accomplish the object was demonstrated by information received from Major Anderson at the War Department on the last day of th
April, 1 AD (search for this): article 6
there was no present necessity for sending reinforcements, and that when sent they should go, not in a vessel of commerce, but of war. Hence the countermand was dispatched by telegraph to New York; but the vessel had sailed a short time before it reached the officer (Col. Scott) to whom it was addressed." A statement of these facts, established by dates, proves conclusively that the President was not only willing but anxious in the briefest period to reinforce Fort Sumter. On the 4th of January, the day before the departure of the Star of the West from New York, as Gen. Scott in his statement admits, succor was sent to Fort Taylor, Key West, and to Fort Jefferson, Tortugas Island, which reached these points in time for their security. He nevertheless speculates on the consequences which might have followed had the reinforcements not reached their destination in due time, and even expresses the extraordinary opinion that, with the possession of these forts, "the rebels might
September, 1 AD (search for this): article 6
nd to New York. A military necessity for a capitulation may have existed in case there should be an attack upon the fort, or a demand for its sur- render, but surely none such could have existed for its voluntary surrender and abandonment. Probably that to which the General meant to refer was not the quart, but the actual, truce of arms concluded at Charleston on the 11th of January, 1861, between Gov. Pickens and Major Anderson, without the knowledge of the President. It was on the 9th of January that the Star of the West under the American flag, was fired upon in the harbor of Charleston by order of Gov. Pickens. Immediately after this outrage Major Anderson sent a flag to the Governor stating that he presumed the act had been unauthorized, and for that reason he had not opened fire from Fort Sumter on the adjacent batteries, but demanding its disavowal, and if this were not sent in a reasonable time he would consider it war, and fire on any vessel that attempted to leave t
May, 2 AD (search for this): article 6
lt was highly fortunate. The Brooklyn had a long passage. Although she left Fortress Monroe on the 24th of January, she did not arrive at Pensacola until the 5th of February. In the meantime Fort Pickens, with Lieutenant Slemmer (whose conduct deserves high commendation,) and his brave little band were placed, by virtue of this nt containing the reasons for this worrying delay were communicated to Congress in a special message of the 8th of February, to which I refer the reader. On the 5th of February, the Secretary of War, under the instructions of the President, gave a peremptory refusal to this demand in an able and comprehensive letter, reviewing thelonging to the Coast Survey, but he was kept back by the truce." A strange inconsistency. The truce had expired with Mr. Holt's letter to Col. Hayne on the 5th of February, and Gen. Scott in his statement says:-- "It would have been easy to reinforce this fort down to about the 12th of February." Why, then, did not the
isions, and military stores were dispatched by the Brooklyn to Fort Pickens without a moment's un- necessary delay. She left Fortress Monroe on the 24th of January. Well-founded apprehensions were, however, entertained at the time of her departure that the reinforcements, with the vessels of war at no great distance from Fort Pickens, could not arrive in time to defend it against the impending attack.--In this state of suspense, and whilst Lieutenant Slemmer was in extreme peril, Senators Sildell, Hunter, and Bigler received a telegraphic dispatch from Senator Mallory, of Florida, dated at Pensacola, on the 28th January, with the urgent request that they should lay it before the President. This dispatch expressed an earnest desire to maintain the peace, as well as the most positive assurance that no attack would be made on Fort Pickens if the present status should be preserved. This proposal was carefully considered, both with a view to the safety of the fort and to the u
Gen Jackson (search for this): article 6
must be defective. At present I shall specify only one. I could not have stated that on a future contingent occasion I would telegraph "Major Anderson, of Fort Moultrie, to hold the forts (Moultrie and Sumter) against attack;" because, with prudent precaution, this had already been done several days before, through a special messenger sent to Major Anderson for this very purpose. I refer to Major Buel, of the army. The General's supplementary note of the same day, presenting to me Gen Jackson's conduct in 1838 during the period of nullification, as an example, requires no special notice. Even if the cases were not entirely different, I had previously determined upon a policy of my own, as will appear from my annual message. This was, at every hazard, to collect the customs at Charleston, and outside of the port, if need be, in a vessel of war. Mr. Coloock, the existing collector, as I had anticipated, resigned his office about the end of December, and immediately thereafter
ery purpose. I refer to Major Buel, of the army. The General's supplementary note of the same day, presenting to me Gen Jackson's conduct in 1838 during the period of nullification, as an example, requires no special notice. Even if the cases were not entirely different, I had previously determined upon a policy of my own, as will appear from my annual message. This was, at every hazard, to collect the customs at Charleston, and outside of the port, if need be, in a vessel of war. Mr. Coloock, the existing collector, as I had anticipated, resigned his office about the end of December, and immediately thereafter I nominated to the Senate, as his successor, a suitable person, prepared at any personal risk to do his duty. That body, however, throughout its entire session, declined to act on this nomination. Thus, without a collector, it was rendered impossible to collect the revenue. IV. General Scott's statements allege that "the Brooklyn, with Capt. Vodges's company alon
... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26