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 ...
Charles Francis Adams (search for this): entry ship-building
ard, acting under instructions from the President, wrote to Charles Francis Adams, our minister to England, instructing him to give to Earl Rell the six months notice necessary to terminate the convention. Mr. Adams gave this notice Nov. 23, 1864. It will be noted that the execthern border ceased. On March 8, 1865, Secretary Seward wrote to Mr. Adams: You may say to Lord Russell that we are quite willing that the chas been found of any communication to the British authorities by Mr. Adams of his instructions. He may have conveyed them orally at an infoe 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.ement 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 N exchanged in 1865 shows that it is so regarded. He assumes that Mr. Adams communicated to the British ministry the instruction of our Secre
Benjamin H. Day (search for this): entry ship-building
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. 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
A. P. Calhoun (search for this): entry ship-building
stered 498 tons and carried two 8-inch guns and four 32-pounder carronades. 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 hadMr. 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 restr
William Hunter (search for this): entry ship-building
that the convention should remain practically in force. No record has been found of any communication to the British authorities by Mr. Adams 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
Frederick Bruce (search for this): entry ship-building
wrote to Mr. Adams: You may say to Lord Russell that we are quite willing that the convention should remain practically in force. No record has been found of any communication to the British authorities by Mr. Adams 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
John Hay (search for this): entry ship-building
atus 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, oMr. 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 between the United States and Canada, among which was a revision of the agreement of 1817 respecting naval vessels on the lakes. The American commissioners weMr. 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 between the United States and Canada, among which was a revision of the agreement of 1817 respecting naval vessels on the lakes. The American commissioners were instructed to secure a declaration that it was not contrary to the true spirit of the arrangement of 1817 to build war-vessels on the lakes to be taken to the ocean, or to maintain gunboats on the lakes for the training of the naval reserves. They were also instructed to arrange with Great Britain for the passage of such vessel
John Watson Foster (search for this): entry ship-building
tions for the abrogation or modification of the agreement. On April 11, 1892, the Senate passed a resolution directing the Secretary 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 reply to the inquiry whether the department considered the agreement still in force, he said: The correspondence exchanged in 1865 shows that it is so regarded. He assumes that Mr. Adams communicated to the British ministry the instruction of our Secretary of State to withdraw the notice terminating the agreement, and explains that Great Britain could not question Secr
Hugh Peters (search for this): entry ship-building
any years a much-depressed industry; but since 1890 it has been unusually active under the impetus given by the United States government in building its new navy. Ship-building and commerce in New England was begun at Salem about 1640, when Hugh Peters was active in getting up a company to engage in the fisheries on the Eastern coasts, which had been hitherto carried on extensively by the people of Old England. The General Court made an order that all property engaged in that business should be free from taxation for seven years. Peters was active in promoting the building of vessels; and in the course of two years six large vessels were built, in which voyages were undertaken to Madeira, the Canaries, and soon afterwards to Spain, with cargoes of staves and fish, which found a ready market. These vessels brought 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; nava
John Forsyth (search for this): entry ship-building
naval armament on the lakes beyond the limits fixed in the agreement, for the purpose of defending their shores from the incursions of small bands of so-called Canadian patriots. This increase of the naval force led our Secretary of State, Mr. Forsyth, to remonstrate to Mr. Fox, the British minister. Mr. Fox replied that the increase was made necessary in consequence of unlawful and piratical acts of hostility; that the armament was equipped for the sole purpose of guarding her Majesty's province against a manifest and acknowledged danger, and that it would be discontinued at the earliest possible period after the causes which created the danger had ceased to exist. This reply satisfied Mr. Forsyth for a year, when he again called the attention of Mr. Fox to the matter and suggested that, the causes for the increase in the armament having ceased to exist, the President expected that the British force would be reduced to the limits fixed by the convention. This reminder of he
Frederick Seward (search for this): entry ship-building
tention. In August, 1861, Lord Lyons wrote to Secretary Seward that he had been instructed to represent to of the limit stipulated in the agreement of 1817. Mr. Seward replied, giving the exact tonnage and armament of House of Representatives, Lord Lyons wrote to Secretary Seward that Great Britain would view the abrogation oher own selfpreservation. On Oct. 24, 1864, Secretary Seward, acting under instructions from the President,ed by Congress. Approved, Feb. 9, 1865. Secretary Seward, Senator Sumner, both Houses of Congress, and our northern border ceased. On March 8, 1865, Secretary Seward wrote to Mr. Adams: You may say to Lord Russelmal withdrawal of the notice of Nov. 23, 1864. Secretary Seward replied in writing to these inquiries the nextexplains that Great Britain could not question Secretary Seward's power to make such a withdrawal. To sustaingood statesmanship, and sound policy. Whether Secretary Seward's action in committing his government to the r
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...