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
United States (United States) 16,340 0 Browse Search
England (United Kingdom) 6,437 1 Browse Search
France (France) 2,462 0 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 2,310 0 Browse Search
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) 1,788 0 Browse Search
Europe 1,632 0 Browse Search
New England (United States) 1,606 0 Browse Search
Canada (Canada) 1,474 0 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 1,468 0 Browse Search
Mexico (Mexico, Mexico) 1,404 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History (ed. Benson Lossing). Search the whole document.

Found 165 total hits in 51 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6
January 1st, 1815 AD (search for this): entry embargo-acts
supplied with provisions from American ports by unpatriotic men; also that British manufactures were being introduced on professedly neutral vessels. Such traffic was extensively carried on, especially in New England ports, where magistrates were often leniently disposed towards such violators of law. In a confidential message (Dec. 9, 1813) the President recommended the passage of an embargo act to suppress the traffic, and one passed both Houses on the 17th, to remain in force until Jan. 1, 1815, unless the war should sooner cease. It prohibited, under severe penalties, the exportation, or attempt at exportation, by land or water, of any goods, produce, specie, or live-stock; and to guard against evasions even the coast trade was entirely prohibited. This bore heavily on the business of some of the New England sea-coast towns. No transportation was allowed, even on inland waters, without special permission from the President. While the act bore so heavily on honest traders, i
March 26th, 1794 AD (search for this): entry embargo-acts
Embargo acts. The British Orders in Council (Nov. 6, 1793) and a reported speech of Lord Dorchester (Guy Carleton) to a deputation of the Western Indians, produced much indignation against the British government. Under the stimulus of this excitement Congress passed (March 26, 1794) a joint resolution laying an embargo on commerce for thirty days. The measure seemed to have chiefly in view the obstructing the supply of provisions for the British fleet and army in the West Indies. It operated quite as much against the French. Subsequently (April 7) a resolution was introduced to discontinue all commercial intercourse with Great Britain and her subjects, as far as respected all articles of the growth or manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland, until the surrender of the Western posts and ample compensation should be given for all losses and damages growing out of British aggression on the neutral rights of the Americans. It was evident from the course that the debate assumed an
November 6th, 1793 AD (search for this): entry embargo-acts
Embargo acts. The British Orders in Council (Nov. 6, 1793) and a reported speech of Lord Dorchester (Guy Carleton) to a deputation of the Western Indians, produced much indignation against the British government. Under the stimulus of this excitement Congress passed (March 26, 1794) a joint resolution laying an embargo on commerce for thirty days. The measure seemed to have chiefly in view the obstructing the supply of provisions for the British fleet and army in the West Indies. It operated quite as much against the French. Subsequently (April 7) a resolution was introduced to discontinue all commercial intercourse with Great Britain and her subjects, as far as respected all articles of the growth or manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland, until the surrender of the Western posts and ample compensation should be given for all losses and damages growing out of British aggression on the neutral rights of the Americans. It was evident from the course that the debate assumed an
April 6th (search for this): entry embargo-acts
d threatened him so pertinaciously that he consented to declare war against Great Britain. As a preliminary measure he sent a confidential message to Congress (April 1, 1812) recommending the passage of an act laying an embargo for sixty days. A bill was introduced to that effect by Mr. Calhoun, of South Carolina, which prohibited the sailing of any vessel for any foreign port, except foreign ships with such cargoes as they might have on board when notified of the act. The bill was passed (April 6), and was speedily followed by a supplementary act, (April 14) prohibiting exportations by land, whether of goods or specie. The latter measure was called the land embargo. It was vehemently denounced, for it suddenly suppressed an active and lucrative trade between the United States and Canada. It was ascertained that the British blockading squadron in American waters was constantly supplied with provisions from American ports by unpatriotic men; also that British manufactures were
1864 AD (search for this): entry embargo-acts
out the country, and the demise of the Terrapin was hailed as a good omen of commercial prosperity. The Death of the embargo was celebrated in verses published in the Federal Republican newspaper of Georgetown, in the District of Columbia. These were reproduced in the New York Evening post, with an illustration designed by John Wesley Jarvis, the painter, and drawn and engraved on wood by Dr. Alexander Anderson. The picture was redrawn and engraved by Dr. Anderson, on a reduced scale, in 1864, after a lapse of exactly fifty years. The lines which it illustrates are as follows: Terrapin's address. Reflect, my friend as you pass by, As you are now, so once was I: As I am now, so you may be— Laid on your back to die like me! I was, indeed, true sailor born; To quit my friend in death I scorn. Once Jemmy seemed to be my friend, But basely brought me to my end! Of head bereft, and light, and breath, I hold Fidelity in death: For Sailors' Rights I still will tug; And Madison t
September 28th, 1808 AD (search for this): entry embargo-acts
ng to be such must be British vessels in disguise. Feeling the pressure of the opposition to the embargo at home, Pinckney was authorized to propose to the British ministry a repeal of the Embargo Act, as to Great Britain, on condition of the recall of her Orders in Council. Not wishing to encounter a refusal, Pinckney sounded Canning, the secretary of foreign affairs, who gradually led the American Embargo minister into making a formal proposition. To this Canning made a reply (Sept. 28, 1808) in writing, unsurpassed in diplomatic cunning and partially concealed sarcasm. It also contained sound views on the whole subject of the orders and decrees. Canning insisted that, as France was the original aggressor, by the issuing of the Berlin decree, retaliation (the claimed cause of the embargo) ought, in the first instance, to have been directed against that power alone; and England could not consent to buy off a hostile procedure, of which she ought never to have been made the
October 25th, 1807 AD (search for this): entry embargo-acts
ted by the House that the resolution would be adopted. This measure would have led directly to war. To avert this calamity, Washington was inclined to send a special minister to England. The appointment of John Jay (q. v.) followed. On the receipt of despatches from Minister Armstrong, at Paris, containing information about the new interpretation of the Berlin decree and also of the British Orders in Council, President Jefferson, who had called Congress together earlier than usual (Oct. 25, 1807), sent a message to that body communicating facts in his possession and recommending the passage of an embargo act— an inhibition of the departure of our vessels from the ports of the United States. The Senate, after a session of four hours, passed a bill—22 to 6—laying an embargo on all shipping, foreign and domestic, in the ports of the United States, with specified exceptions and ordering all vessels abroad to return home forthwith. This was done in secret session. The House, also <
April 7th (search for this): entry embargo-acts
1793) and a reported speech of Lord Dorchester (Guy Carleton) to a deputation of the Western Indians, produced much indignation against the British government. Under the stimulus of this excitement Congress passed (March 26, 1794) a joint resolution laying an embargo on commerce for thirty days. The measure seemed to have chiefly in view the obstructing the supply of provisions for the British fleet and army in the West Indies. It operated quite as much against the French. Subsequently (April 7) a resolution was introduced to discontinue all commercial intercourse with Great Britain and her subjects, as far as respected all articles of the growth or manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland, until the surrender of the Western posts and ample compensation should be given for all losses and damages growing out of British aggression on the neutral rights of the Americans. It was evident from the course that the debate assumed and from the temper manifested by the House that the resolu
December 9th, 1813 AD (search for this): entry embargo-acts
an active and lucrative trade between the United States and Canada. It was ascertained that the British blockading squadron in American waters was constantly supplied with provisions from American ports by unpatriotic men; also that British manufactures were being introduced on professedly neutral vessels. Such traffic was extensively carried on, especially in New England ports, where magistrates were often leniently disposed towards such violators of law. In a confidential message (Dec. 9, 1813) the President recommended the passage of an embargo act to suppress the traffic, and one passed both Houses on the 17th, to remain in force until Jan. 1, 1815, unless the war should sooner cease. It prohibited, under severe penalties, the exportation, or attempt at exportation, by land or water, of any goods, produce, specie, or live-stock; and to guard against evasions even the coast trade was entirely prohibited. This bore heavily on the business of some of the New England sea-coast
April 14th (search for this): entry embargo-acts
as cogent reasons for the repeal. These considerations had weight, added to which was the necessity for increasing the revenue. Finally, on Jan. 19 (1814), the President recommended the repeal of the Embargo Act, and it was done by Congress on April 14. There were great rejoicings throughout the country, and the demise of the Terrapin was hailed as a good omen of commercial prosperity. The Death of the embargo was celebrated in verses published in the Federal Republican newspaper of Georgelina, which prohibited the sailing of any vessel for any foreign port, except foreign ships with such cargoes as they might have on board when notified of the act. The bill was passed (April 6), and was speedily followed by a supplementary act, (April 14) prohibiting exportations by land, whether of goods or specie. The latter measure was called the land embargo. It was vehemently denounced, for it suddenly suppressed an active and lucrative trade between the United States and Canada. It wa
1 2 3 4 5 6