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.

... 6 7 8 9 10 11
1884 AD (search for this): entry ship-building
al 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. Mr. 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 part of the summer of 1815, Mr. John Quincy Adams, our minister to Great Britain, forwarded to this government evidence that Great Britain, instead of disarming her lake
April 16th, 1898 AD (search for this): entry ship-building
. This bill was referred to the committee on naval affairs and included as an item in the naval appropriation bill of 1898, with the proviso that said construction of said gunboat shall conform to all existing treaties and conventions. On April 16, 1898, immediately upon the passage of this act, the Secretary of the Navy addressed to the Secretary of State an inquiry whether he would be limited by any restrictions as to armament and tonnage in the construction of a gunboat for the lakes. Toal vessels. The government is thus a loser as well by being deprived of the competition of these lake yards. The United States suffers a still more serious loss, which is forcibly alluded to by the Secretary of the Navy in his letter of April 16, 1898: This inquiry is prompted by the further consideration that it was doubtless not at all within the contemplation of the understanding of 1817 that the national resources in naval construction should be materially diminished thereby, as
1771 AD (search for this): entry ship-building
rican colonies (see navigation acts) by Great Britain almost stifled it at its birth. The commerce of the colonies, if left free, would have fostered an extensive business in ship-building. An English author, in 1670, wrote: Our American plantations employ nearly two-thirds of our English shipping, and thereby give constant subsistence to, it may be, 200,000 persons here at home. Notwithstanding these View in a New England ship-yard. restrictions, there were built, in the aggregate, in 1771, in the thirteen colonies, 128 square-rigged vessels and 241 sloops and schooners, with an aggregate tonnage of 24,068. Ship-building had become a very extensive industry in our country when the Civil War (1861-65) broke out. The Anglo-Confederate cruisers drove much of the American carrying-trade into foreign bottoms, and ship-building in the United States was for many years a much-depressed industry; but since 1890 it has been unusually active under the impetus given by the United States go
1670 AD (search for this): entry ship-building
Ship-building. This industry began in the United States at the dawn of American commerce, but the restrictions placed upon the commerce of the American colonies (see navigation acts) by Great Britain almost stifled it at its birth. The commerce of the colonies, if left free, would have fostered an extensive business in ship-building. An English author, in 1670, wrote: Our American plantations employ nearly two-thirds of our English shipping, and thereby give constant subsistence to, it may be, 200,000 persons here at home. Notwithstanding these View in a New England ship-yard. restrictions, there were built, in the aggregate, in 1771, in the thirteen colonies, 128 square-rigged vessels and 241 sloops and schooners, with an aggregate tonnage of 24,068. Ship-building had become a very extensive industry in our country when the Civil War (1861-65) broke out. The Anglo-Confederate cruisers drove much of the American carrying-trade into foreign bottoms, and ship-building in th
1900 AD (search for this): entry ship-building
man 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. Mr. 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 part of the summer of 1815, Mr. John Quincy Adams, our minister to Great Britain, forwarded to this government evidence that Great Britain, instead of disarming her lake fleet, was making plans to increase its size and efficiency. This determination
November 23rd, 1864 AD (search for this): entry ship-building
him to give to Earl Russell the six months notice necessary to terminate the convention. 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 asse notice required for the termination of the treaty by a communication which took effect on the twenty-third of November, eighteen hundred and sixty-four: Therefore, Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States interview, but it is strange that he made no report of his action to his government. The notice given by Mr. Adams. Nov. 23, 1864, would have terminated the agreement May 23, 1865. June 15, 1865, Sir Frederick Bruce, who had succeeded Lord Lyonually at an end, or whether the despatch to Mr. Adams of March 8 was intended as a formal withdrawal of the notice of Nov. 23, 1864. Secretary Seward replied in writing to these inquiries the next day that the instruction to the United States minist
March 8th (search for this): entry ship-building
s of his instructions. He may have conveyed them orally at an informal interview, but it is strange that he made no report of his action to his government. The notice given by Mr. Adams. Nov. 23, 1864, would have terminated the agreement May 23, 1865. June 15, 1865, Sir Frederick Bruce, who had succeeded Lord Lyons as British minister, wrote to Mr. Hunter, acting Secretary of State, inquiring whether the agreement of 1817 was virtually at an end, or whether the despatch to Mr. Adams of March 8 was intended as a formal withdrawal of the notice of Nov. 23, 1864. Secretary Seward replied in writing to these inquiries the next day that the instruction to the United States minister at London of March 8, 1865, was intended as a withdrawal of the previous notice within the time allowed, and that it is so held by this government. This is probably the only instance where an act of Congress has been set aside through instructions issued by our Secretary of State to one of our foreign min
January 15th, 1900 AD (search for this): entry ship-building
g treaties and conventions. On April 16, 1898, immediately upon the passage of this act, the Secretary of the Navy addressed to the Secretary of State an inquiry whether he would be limited by any restrictions as to armament and tonnage in the construction of a gunboat for the lakes. To this Secretary Day replied, July 1, 1898, that the subject was one of the matters to come before the joint high commission on questions affecting the relations between the United States and Canada. Jan. 15, 1900, the House of Representatives passed a resolution requesting the Secretary of State to communicate to the House the status of this agreement 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 Gre
... 6 7 8 9 10 11