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) 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 519 total hits in 108 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...
Henry Sherman Boutell (search for this): entry ship-building
t back wines, sugar, and dried fruit. So began the career of navigation and commerce which has specially distinguished the New England States. See navigation acts; naval ships; Great Lakes and the Navy. Ship-building on the Lakes. Henry Sherman Boutell, who has been a member of Congress from Illinois since 1897, contributes the following illuminative discussion of the Rush-Bagot convention in its relation to the subject of the building and maintenance of war-ships on the Great Lakes. MrMr. Boutell was born in Boston, Mass., March 4, 1856; graduated at Harvard in 1876; admitted to the Illinois bar in 1879; and was a member of the Illinois legislature in 1884. He was elected to Congress in November, 1897, and re-elected in 1898 and 1900. In 1815, at the close of the war between the United States and Great Britain, each country had a considerable naval force on the northern lakes. The reduction of this force was essential to a permanent peace. Nevertheless, in the latter
A. Lincoln (search for this): entry ship-building
resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the notice given by the President of the United States to the government of Great Britain and Ireland to terminate the treaty of eighteen hundred and seventeen, regulating the naval force upon the lake, is hereby adopted and ratified as if the same had been authorized by Congress. Approved, Feb. 9, 1865. Secretary Seward, Senator Sumner, both Houses of Congress, and President Lincoln called this convention a treaty, so that there is ample justification for giving it that title. As a treaty it was a part of the supreme law of the land. As a law of the land it was repealed by this joint resolution of Congress. Such action certainly would have been a death-blow to any other treaty, but the Rush-Bagot convention still survives. It was resuscitated in this remarkable manner: As the final triumph of the Federal arms became certain, the attitude of Great Britain to
Benjamin Harrison (search for this): entry ship-building
ry of State to inform the Senate whether the State Department considered the agreement of 1817 in force, and, if so, what action had been taken to revive it after the passage of the joint resolution of 1865. In response to this resolution, President Harrison sent to the Senate, Dec. 7, 1892, a message containing a most interesting and exhaustive account by Mr. John W. Foster, Secretary of State, of the birth, life, death, resuscitation and accomplishments of the Rush-Bagot convention. In replyagreement between the United States and Great Britain. Feb. 27, 1900, President McKinley transmitted to the House a message containing a report of Secretary Hay in response to this resolution. Mr. Hay includes in his report the message of President Harrison of Dec. 7, 1892. From Mr. Hay's report it appears that, on May 30, 1898, the United States and Great Britain agreed upon the creation of a joint high commission, to which should be referred for settlement various pending questions betwee
Lewis Cass (search for this): entry ship-building
d probably not have been adopted if their use had been anticipated. No effective steamer for any purpose, it is believed, would be built of a tonnage of 100 tons. Either the British ministry took thirteen years to consider and digest this suggestion, or the Michigan kept out of sight of British officers during that time, for it was not until 1857 that she attracted the attention of Lord Napier. He de scribes her as a revenue cruiser of the burden of 800 tons, and ventures to suggest to Mr. Cass that it would be expedient for him to inquire whether his government is complying with the treaty of 1817. There is no record of any written reply to Lord Napier's note. For the next four years the Michigan again seems to have escaped attention. In August, 1861, Lord Lyons wrote to Secretary Seward that he had been instructed to represent to the United States government that the armament of the Michigan would seem to be in excess of the limit stipulated in the agreement of 1817. Mr.
Grover Cleveland (search for this): entry ship-building
d hardly have been anticipated by its framers. In the first place, it debars the shipbuilders on the lakes from competing for the construction of such government warvessels as can pass the Canadian canals. This is a discrimination against a large and important industry which should not be tolerated except for the most urgent reasons. The American Ship-building Company now has nine plants on the lakes, located at West Superior, Milwaukee, Chicago, Bay City, Detroit, Wyandotte, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Lorraine. There are three other yards on the lakes, at Bay City, Port Huron, and Toledo. Owing to their proximity to the coal and iron deposits, all these lake ship-yards can compete successfully with any of the yards in this country or elsewhere. They have built several light-ships and other vessels for the Treasury Department, and have been, as we have seen, the lowest bidders for some of the naval vessels. The government is thus a loser as well by being deprived of the competit
James Monroe (search for this): entry ship-building
et, was making plans to increase its size and efficiency. This determination on the part of the British government led Mr. Monroe, our Secretary of State, on Nov. 16, 1815, to write to Mr. Adams instructing him to propose to the British authorities ment, agreement, convention, and treaty. It was nearly a year after the exchange of notes that, on April 6, 1818, President Monroe submitted to the Senate the correspondence between Mr. Rush and Mr. Bagot. Ten days later the Senate, by the unanimonciliation and the establishment of friendly commercial intercourse. These were the conditions which existed when Secretary Monroe wrote to Mr. Adams, in November, 1815. The thought that was uppermost in the minds of the framers of the conventiontion made to the undersigned by the Secretary of the Department of State in his note of Aug. 2 last. Now, a part of Secretary Monroe's proposition was that the naval force to be retained by each party should be restricted in its duty to the protecti
W. P. Rush (search for this): entry ship-building
follows: Washington, April 28, 1817. The undersigned, his Britannic Majesty's envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, has the honor to acquaint Mr. Rush that, having laid before his Majesty's government the correspondence which passed last year between the Secretary of the Department of State and the undersigned ted to such services as will in no respect interfere with the proper duties of the armed vessels of the other party. The undersigned has the honor to renew to Mr. Rush the assurances of his highest consideration. Charles Bagot. To this note Mr. Rush sent the following reply on the next day: Department of State, April Mr. Rush sent the following reply on the next day: Department of State, April 29, 1817. The undersigned, acting Secretary of State, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Bagot's note of the 28th of this month, informing him that, having laid before the government of his Britannic Majesty the correspondence which passed between the Secretary of State and himself upon the subject of a proposal to
Charles Sumner (search for this): entry ship-building
Mr. Adams gave this notice Nov. 23, 1864. It will be noted that the executive department acted in this matter, without any authority from Congress. It assumed the right to annul the convention without legislative action. Jan. 17, 1865, Senator Sumner, chairman of the committee on foreign relations, reported to the Senate, with an amendment, the resolution which had passed the House at its last session. On the next day the resolution passed the Senate. On Feb. 4 the amendment was agreed n and Ireland to terminate the treaty of eighteen hundred and seventeen, regulating the naval force upon the lake, is hereby adopted and ratified as if the same had been authorized by Congress. Approved, Feb. 9, 1865. Secretary Seward, Senator Sumner, both Houses of Congress, and President Lincoln called this convention a treaty, so that there is ample justification for giving it that title. As a treaty it was a part of the supreme law of the land. As a law of the land it was repealed b
Richard Rush (search for this): entry ship-building
himself of this opportunity to tender to Mr. Bagot the assurances of his distinguished consideration and respect. Richard Rush. This correspondence constitutes the compact which has been binding upon the two countries for over eighty-four year after the exchange of notes that, on April 6, 1818, President Monroe submitted to the Senate the correspondence between Mr. Rush and Mr. Bagot. Ten days later the Senate, by the unanimous vote of thirty Senators, approved the agreement, and, on Aprid that Mr. Bagot had full power and authority to bind his government, and Great Britain has acted on the assumption that Mr. Rush was duly authorized and empowered to contract on behalf of the United States. The agreement, therefore, although concluakes. As there was no navigable connection between the lakes, or between Lake Ontario and the ocean, when Mr. Bagot and Mr. Rush used these terms, they understood that a vessel could not be maintained upon the lakes unless it had been built there, a
N. E. Mason (search for this): entry ship-building
rronades. It was now Great Britain's turn to remonstrate. All immediate necessity for increasing her navy had disappeared, and so her minister, Mr. Packenham, conveyed to Secretary Calhoun his conviction that it was by all means desirable that the convention of 1817 should be fulfilled to the letter by both contracting parties. Mr. Calhoun's reply merely refers to an enclosed note of the Secretary of the Navy, to whom he had referred Mr Packenham's communication. The reasons given by Mr. Mason. Secretary of the Navy, for our violation of the agreement were that Great Britain was violating the agreement, and that the methods of naval construction had greatly changed since 1817. On the latter point he wisely said: It is worthy of remark that at the date of the agreement between the two governments steamers were in use to a very limited extent as passenger vessels, and perhaps not at all as ships-of-war. The restriction as to tonnage would probably not have been adopted if their
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...