Browsing named entities in The Daily Dispatch: January 31, 1862., [Electronic resource]. You can also browse the collection for Slidell or search for Slidell in all documents.

Your search returned 5 results in 2 document sections:

The Daily Dispatch: January 31, 1862., [Electronic resource], Late Northern and European news. (search)
ct produced in the Cabinets and amongst the peoples of the leading powers of the Old World by the surrender of Mason and Slidell to England, as well as by the report of the mode in which it was accomplished by the Lincoln Government. The London Post. The increase in bills discounted was nearly 61,000,000 france. No English ovation for the fellows' Mason and Slidell. The London Times has a strong editorial on the reception due to Mason and Slidell; says they are about the most worSlidell; says they are about the most worthless booty it would be possible to extract from the jaws of the American lion; having been long known as blind and habitual haters and revilers of England. The Times sincerely hopes that Englishmen will not give these fellows anything in the shaplad to entangle her in a war with the North. England would have done just as much to rescue two negroes. Let Mason and Slidell, therefore, pass quietly on their way, and have their say with anybody who may wish to listen to them. The other jo
The Daily Dispatch: January 31, 1862., [Electronic resource], The sequestration law. (search)
ederacy, inevitably. The approaching session of parliament will show it; and, in the meanwhile, the continued military preparation of the British Government is a circumstance not to be regarded as insignificant. As for the Times, it is a very powerful, yet a very inconsistent and unprincipled newspaper. It is an fickle as the New York Herald, and as unscrupulous. It is more respectable, indeed; but still it can sometimes descend very much in decency. Its attack on Messrs. Mason and Slidell, if properly represented, is that of a blackguard. it has one advantage of the Herald: that its editors have not been cowhided or booted; but then Bennett is known and accessible, while the editorial head of the Times is a myth, a thing intangible. It has neither a soul nor corporality. So that, while the Times is a paper of great energy, great ability, it has no sort of sensibility, no sense of justice, no character for consistancy, sincerity, or fair dealing. In cold shoulder to the S