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
Robert E. Dixon 52 0 Browse Search
Goodrich 33 1 Browse Search
Dixon, Ill. (Illinois, United States) 12 0 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 11 1 Browse Search
Gen Grant 10 0 Browse Search
France (France) 8 0 Browse Search
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) 8 0 Browse Search
Moses L. Stratton 7 1 Browse Search
Robert S. Forde 6 0 Browse Search
Forney 6 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: June 11, 1863., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 7 total hits in 4 results.

Nord (search for this): article 5
[for the Richmond Dispatch.]the Numerical Combinations. Richmond, June 2, 1863. In your issue of this date you say, "we make the following extract from the Paris Nord:" "An ingenious arithmetician has made the following calculations, in virtue of which he proposes to call the year 1863 the year of nines," and concludes with the announcement that "this year is essentially one of revolutions." [Italics my own] Why did this "ingenious arithmetician" wait for the year 1863? For example, if he had gone back to the year 972, he would have found that, subjected to similar tests, (which any of your readers can do,) it would give like results. The truth is that any number, such as "1863," "972," &c., or 2754, (should it ever come.) the sum of whose digits, taken two and two from the right, is divisible by nine, will develop nearly all (if not all) of the peculiarities ascribed so ominously to 1863. As I have often seen similar articles going the rounds of the press, by giving t
June 2nd, 1863 AD (search for this): article 5
[for the Richmond Dispatch.]the Numerical Combinations. Richmond, June 2, 1863. In your issue of this date you say, "we make the following extract from the Paris Nord:" "An ingenious arithmetician has made the following calculations, in virtue of which he proposes to call the year 1863 the year of nines," and concludes with the announcement that "this year is essentially one of revolutions." [Italics my own] Why did this "ingenious arithmetician" wait for the year 1863? For example, if he had gone back to the year 972, he would have found that, subjected to similar tests, (which any of your readers can do,) it would give like results. The truth is that any number, such as "1863," "972," &c., or 2754, (should it ever come.) the sum of whose digits, taken two and two from the right, is divisible by nine, will develop nearly all (if not all) of the peculiarities ascribed so ominously to 1863. As I have often seen similar articles going the rounds of the press, by giving t
1863 AD (search for this): article 5
is Nord:" "An ingenious arithmetician has made the following calculations, in virtue of which he proposes to call the year 1863 the year of nines," and concludes with the announcement that "this year is essentially one of revolutions." [Italics my own] Why did this "ingenious arithmetician" wait for the year 1863? For example, if he had gone back to the year 972, he would have found that, subjected to similar tests, (which any of your readers can do,) it would give like results. The truth is that any number, such as "1863," "972," &c., or 2754, (should it ever come.) the sum of whose digits, taken two and two from the right, is divisible by nine, will develop nearly all (if not all) of the peculiarities ascribed so ominously to 1863. all (if not all) of the peculiarities ascribed so ominously to 1863. As I have often seen similar articles going the rounds of the press, by giving this an insertion in your paper you will promote the interests of true science. A Subscriber.
972 AD (search for this): article 5
Numerical Combinations. Richmond, June 2, 1863. In your issue of this date you say, "we make the following extract from the Paris Nord:" "An ingenious arithmetician has made the following calculations, in virtue of which he proposes to call the year 1863 the year of nines," and concludes with the announcement that "this year is essentially one of revolutions." [Italics my own] Why did this "ingenious arithmetician" wait for the year 1863? For example, if he had gone back to the year 972, he would have found that, subjected to similar tests, (which any of your readers can do,) it would give like results. The truth is that any number, such as "1863," "972," &c., or 2754, (should it ever come.) the sum of whose digits, taken two and two from the right, is divisible by nine, will develop nearly all (if not all) of the peculiarities ascribed so ominously to 1863. As I have often seen similar articles going the rounds of the press, by giving this an insertion in your paper y