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 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) 1,340 0 Browse Search
W. T. Sherman 340 6 Browse Search
Ulysses S. Grant 275 3 Browse Search
James Longstreet 260 4 Browse Search
J. E. Johnston 244 0 Browse Search
T. J. Jackson 240 4 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 225 3 Browse Search
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) 219 1 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 180 0 Browse Search
A. P. Hill 168 14 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. Search the whole document.

Found 417 total hits in 44 results.

1 2 3 4 5
Florida (Florida, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.24
e Confederacy and the two powers just named, were suffered to remain inoperative against the menaces and outrages on neutral rights committed by the United States with unceasing and progressing arrogance during the whole period of the war. Neutral Europe remained passive when the United States, with a naval force insufficient to blockade effectively the coast of a single state, proclaimed a paper blockade of thousands of miles of coast, extending from the Capes of the Chesapeake to those of Florida, and encircling the Gulf of Mexico from Key West to the mouth of the Rio Grande. Compared with this monstrous pretension of the United States, the blockades known in history under the names of the Berlin and Milan Decrees, and the British Orders in Council, in the years 1806 and 1807, sink into insignificance. Those blockades were justified by the powers that declared them, on the sole ground that they were retaliatory; yet they have since been condemned by the publicists of those very po
St. Petersburg (Russia) (search for this): chapter 1.24
nce, Great Britain, and Russia, relative to a mediation between the Confederacy and the United States. On October 30, 1862, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Drouyn de l'huys, addressed a note to the ambassadors of France at London and St. Petersburg. In this dispatch he stated that the Emperor had followed with painful interest the struggle which had then been going on for more than a year on this continent. He observed that the proofs of energy, preseverance, and courage, on both sideaken after mature reflection remain without results. Being also desirous of informing Mr. Dayton, the United States Minister, of our project, I confidently communicated it to him, and even read in his presence the dispatch sent to London and St. Petersburg. I could not but be surprised that the Minister of the United States should oppose his objections to the project I communicated to him, and to hear him express personally some doubts as to the reception which would be given by the Cabinet at
Russia (Russia) (search for this): chapter 1.24
France to Great Britain, and Russian letter of French Minister reply of Great Britain reply of Russia letter to French Minister at Washington various offensive actions of the British government h out of place here to notice a correspondence between the cabinets of France, Great Britain, and Russia, relative to a mediation between the Confederacy and the United States. On October 30, 1862, thes of the maritime powers. He, therefore, proposed to Her Majesty, as well as to the Emperor of Russia, that the three courts should endeavor, both at Washington and in communication with the Confede hitherto received, we are inclined to believe that a combined step between France, England, and Russia, no matter how conciliatory, and how cautiously made, if it were taken with an official and collwould be given by the Cabinet at Washington to the joint officers of the good offices of France, Russia, and Great Britain. It has already been stated that, by common understanding, the initiative
Nassau River (Florida, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.24
itish Foreign Office, which interposed no objection. Yet, in October of the same year, Earl Russell entertained the complaint of the United States minister in London that the Confederate States were importing contraband of war from the island of Nassau, directed inquiry into the matter, and obtained a report from the authorities of the island denying the allegations, which report was enclosed to Adams, and received by him as satisfactory evidence to dissipate the suspicion thrown upon the authoers, the British government, in violation of its own laws, and in deference to the importunate demands of the United States, made an ineffectual attempt to seize one vessel, and did actually seize and detain another which touched at the island of Nassau, on her way to a Confederate port, and subjected her to an unfounded prosecution, at the very time when cargoes of munitions of war were openly shipped from British ports to New York, to be used in warfare against us. Further instances need not b
London (United Kingdom) (search for this): chapter 1.24
er. This continued unchanged to the close. Mason became our representative in London, Slidell in Paris, Rost in Spain, and Mann in Belgium. They performed the posiign Affairs, Drouyn de l'huys, addressed a note to the ambassadors of France at London and St. Petersburg. In this dispatch he stated that the Emperor had followed wntly communicated it to him, and even read in his presence the dispatch sent to London and St. Petersburg. I could not but be surprised that the Minister of the Unitd to abandon for themselves. On June 12, 1861, the United States Minister in London informed Her Majesty's Minister for Foreign Affairs that the fact of his having. On May 21, 1861, Earl Russell pointed out to the United States Minister in London that the blockade might, no doubt, be made effective, considering the small nume year, Earl Russell entertained the complaint of the United States minister in London that the Confederate States were importing contraband of war from the island of
Wilmington, N. C. (North Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.24
ct terms of which were settled with deliberation by the common consent of civilized nations, and by implied convention with our government, as already explained, and their effect was clearly to reopen to the prejudice of the Confederacy one of the very disputed questions on the law of blockade which the Congress of Paris proposed to settle. The importance of this change was readily illustrated by taking one of our ports as an example. There was evident danger, in entering the port of Wilmington, from the presence of a blockading force, and by this test the blockade was effective. Access is not really prevented by the blockading fleet to the same port; steamers were continually arriving and departing, so that, tried by this test, the blockade was ineffective and invalid. Thus, while every energy of our country was evoked in the struggle for maintaining its existence, the neutral nations of Europe pursued a policy which, nominally impartial, was practically most favorable to our
England (United Kingdom) (search for this): chapter 1.24
of European nations: following the example of England and France different conditions of the belliquences the chief cause of the war between Great Britain and the United States in 1812; they also fespondence between the cabinets of France, Great Britain, and Russia, relative to a mediation betweof conciliation and peace. The reply of Great Britain, through Lord John Russell, on November 13of the good offices of France, Russia, and Great Britain. It has already been stated that, by ce, placed it in the power of either France or England to obstruct at pleasure the recognition to whation, scrupulously observed the duties of Great Britain toward a friendly state. It is not nec the United States that he had sent agents to England, and that others would go to France, to purchen the Confederate government purchased in Great Britain, as a neutral country (with strict observahe law of nations and the municipal law of Great Britain), vessels which were subsequently armed an[8 more...]
Department de Ville de Paris (France) (search for this): chapter 1.24
ooked. At the end of the first year of the war the Confederate States had been recognized by the leading governments of Europe as a belligerent power. This continued unchanged to the close. Mason became our representative in London, Slidell in Paris, Rost in Spain, and Mann in Belgium. They performed the positions with energy and skill, but were unsuccessful in obtaining our recognition as an independent power. The usages of intercourse between nations require that official communicationf the British nation, scrupulously observed the duties of Great Britain toward a friendly state. It is not necessary to pursue this subject further. Suffice it to say that the British government, when called upon to redeem its pledge made at Paris in 1856, and renewed to the Confederacy in 1861, replied that it could not regard the blockade of Southern ports as having been otherwise than practically effective in February, 1862, and that the manner in which it has since been enforced gives
Belgium (Belgium) (search for this): chapter 1.24
ter to French Minister at Washington various offensive actions of the British government hollow profession of neutrality. The public questions arising out of our foreign relations were too important to be overlooked. At the end of the first year of the war the Confederate States had been recognized by the leading governments of Europe as a belligerent power. This continued unchanged to the close. Mason became our representative in London, Slidell in Paris, Rost in Spain, and Mann in Belgium. They performed the positions with energy and skill, but were unsuccessful in obtaining our recognition as an independent power. The usages of intercourse between nations require that official communication be made to friendly powers of all organic changes in the constitution of states. To those who are familiar with the principles upon which the states known as the United States were originally constituted, as well as those upon which the Union was formed, the organic changes made by
Gulf of Mexico (search for this): chapter 1.24
s just named, were suffered to remain inoperative against the menaces and outrages on neutral rights committed by the United States with unceasing and progressing arrogance during the whole period of the war. Neutral Europe remained passive when the United States, with a naval force insufficient to blockade effectively the coast of a single state, proclaimed a paper blockade of thousands of miles of coast, extending from the Capes of the Chesapeake to those of Florida, and encircling the Gulf of Mexico from Key West to the mouth of the Rio Grande. Compared with this monstrous pretension of the United States, the blockades known in history under the names of the Berlin and Milan Decrees, and the British Orders in Council, in the years 1806 and 1807, sink into insignificance. Those blockades were justified by the powers that declared them, on the sole ground that they were retaliatory; yet they have since been condemned by the publicists of those very powers as violations of internatio
1 2 3 4 5