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
W. T. Sherman 609 21 Browse Search
Atlanta (Georgia, United States) 565 25 Browse Search
United States (United States) 504 0 Browse Search
U. S. Grant 460 6 Browse Search
J. M. Schofield 408 6 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 371 9 Browse Search
George H. Thomas 312 10 Browse Search
Joe Hooker 309 1 Browse Search
J. B. Hood 303 1 Browse Search
Wesley Merritt 290 4 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 11. (ed. Frank Moore). Search the whole document.

Found 212 total hits in 36 results.

1 2 3 4
Decatur (Illinois, United States) (search for this): chapter 106
therefrom, in natural sequence, that the Confederate States can have no claim upon the negro soldiers captured by them from the armies of the United States, because of the former ownership of them by their citizens or subjects, and only claim such as result, under the laws of war, from their captor merely. Do the Confederate authorities claim the right to reduce to a state of slavery free men, prisoners of war captured by them? This claim our fathers fought against under Bainbridge and Decatur, when set up by the Barbary powers on the Northern shore of Africa, about the year 1800, and in 1864 their children will hardly yield it upon their own soil. This point I will not pursue further, because I understand you to repudiate the idea that you will reduce free men to slaves because of capture in war, and that you base the claim of the Confederate authorities to re-enslave our negro soldiers when captured by you, upon the jus post limini, or that principle of the law of nations wh
Washington (United States) (search for this): chapter 106
versation with him I asked him if he had any reply to make to my communication, and his answer was, that he was not authorized to make any. So deep was the solicitude which I felt for the fate of the captives in Northern prisons, that I determined to make another effort. In order to obviate any objection which technically might rise as to the person to whom my communication was addressed, I wrote to Major-General E. A. Hitchcock, who is the Federal Commissioner of Exchange, residing in Washington city, the following letter, and delivered the same to Major Mulford on the day of its date. Accompanying that letter was a copy of the communication which I had addressed to Major Mulford on the tenth of August: Richmond, Va., August 22, 1864. Major-General E. A. Hitchcock, United States Commissioner of Exchange: sir: Enclosed is copy of a communication which, on the tenth instant, I addressed and delivered to Major John E. Mulford, Assistant Agent of Exchange. Under the circumsta
Delaware (Delaware, United States) (search for this): chapter 106
s not in good faith mean to include all the soldiers of the Union, and that you still intend, if your acceptance is agreed to, to hold the colored soldiers of the Union unexchanged, and at labor or service, because I am informed that very lately, almost contemporaneously with this offer on your part to exchange prisoners, and which seems to include all prisoners of war, the Confederate authorities have made a declaration that the negroes heretofore held to service by owners in the States of Delaware, Maryland, and Missouri, are to be treated as prisoners of war when captured in arms in the service of the United States. Such declaration that a part of the colored soldiers of the United States were to be prisoners of war, would seem most strongly to imply that others were not to be so treated, or, in other words, that colored men from the insurrectionary States are to be held to labor and returned to their masters, if captured by the Confederate forces, while duly enrolled and mustered
Varina (North Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 106
he following communication to Major John E. Mulford, Assistant Agent of Exchange, in charge of the flag-of-truce boat, which on the same day I delivered to him at Varina, on James River: war Department Richmond, Va, August 10, 1864 Major John E. Mulford, Assistant Agent of Exchange: sir: You have several times proposed to obedient servant, Ro. Ould, Agent of Exchange. On the afternoon of the thirtieth August, I was notified that the flag-of-truce steamer had again appeared at Varina. On the following day I sent to Major Mulford the following note, to wit: Richmond, Va., August 31, 1864. Major John E. Mulford, Assistant Agent of Exchangectfully, your obedient servant, Ro Ould, Agent of Exchange. In a short time I received the following response, to wit: flag-truce steamer New York, Varina, Va., August 31, 1864. Honorable R. Ould. Agent for Exchange: sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of to-day, requesting answer, &c., to
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 106
nication to Major-General E. A. Hitchcock, United States Commissioner of Exchange, enclosing a copyolled and mustered into the service of the United States, who have been captured by the Confederateay, that whenever a colored soldier of the United States is captured by you, upon whom any claim cas, claiming to be Chief Executive of the Confederate States, declaring in substance that all officerso officially inform the Government of the United States, then, as I am instructed, a principal dif In the view which the Government of the United States takes of the claim made by you to the pers to be imposible for the Government of the United States to permit the negroes in their ranks to beric of opposition to the Government of the United States has the right of property in man as its co hearty and well-fed prisoners held by the United States in exchange for the half-starved, sick, eme honor and faith of the Government of the United States, which has so solemnly been pledged to the[27 more...]
Fortress Monroe (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 106
whether you mean by prisoners held in captivity, colored men, duly enrolled and mustered into the service of the United States, who have been captured by the Confederate forces; and if your authorities are willing to exchange all soldiers so mustered into the United States army, whether colored or otherwise, and the officers commanding them, man for man, officer for officer? At an interview which was held between yourself and the Agent of Exchange on the part of the United States, at Fortress Monroe, in March last, you will do me the favor to remember the principal discussion turned upon this very point; you, on behalf of the Confederate Government, claiming the right to hold all negroes, who had heretofore been slaves and not emancipated by their masters, enrolled and mustered into the service of the United States, when captured by your forces, not as prisoners of war, but upon capture to be turned over to their supposed masters or claimants, whoever they might be, to be held by t
Missouri (Missouri, United States) (search for this): chapter 106
to include all the soldiers of the Union, and that you still intend, if your acceptance is agreed to, to hold the colored soldiers of the Union unexchanged, and at labor or service, because I am informed that very lately, almost contemporaneously with this offer on your part to exchange prisoners, and which seems to include all prisoners of war, the Confederate authorities have made a declaration that the negroes heretofore held to service by owners in the States of Delaware, Maryland, and Missouri, are to be treated as prisoners of war when captured in arms in the service of the United States. Such declaration that a part of the colored soldiers of the United States were to be prisoners of war, would seem most strongly to imply that others were not to be so treated, or, in other words, that colored men from the insurrectionary States are to be held to labor and returned to their masters, if captured by the Confederate forces, while duly enrolled and mustered into, and actually in, t
Richmond (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 106
elivery of prisoners, but in vain. At length, on the twentieth of October, 1863, I addressed to Brigadier-General Meredith the following letter, to wit: Richmond, Va., October 20, 1863. Brigadier-General S. A. Meredith, Agent of Exchange: sir: More than a month ago I asked your acquiescence in a proposition that all offic Mulford on the day of its date. Accompanying that letter was a copy of the communication which I had addressed to Major Mulford on the tenth of August: Richmond, Va., August 22, 1864. Major-General E. A. Hitchcock, United States Commissioner of Exchange: sir: Enclosed is copy of a communication which, on the tenth instanst, I was notified that the flag-of-truce steamer had again appeared at Varina. On the following day I sent to Major Mulford the following note, to wit: Richmond, Va., August 31, 1864. Major John E. Mulford, Assistant Agent of Exchange: sir: On the tenth of this month I addressed you a communication, to which I have recei
Maryland (Maryland, United States) (search for this): chapter 106
ood faith mean to include all the soldiers of the Union, and that you still intend, if your acceptance is agreed to, to hold the colored soldiers of the Union unexchanged, and at labor or service, because I am informed that very lately, almost contemporaneously with this offer on your part to exchange prisoners, and which seems to include all prisoners of war, the Confederate authorities have made a declaration that the negroes heretofore held to service by owners in the States of Delaware, Maryland, and Missouri, are to be treated as prisoners of war when captured in arms in the service of the United States. Such declaration that a part of the colored soldiers of the United States were to be prisoners of war, would seem most strongly to imply that others were not to be so treated, or, in other words, that colored men from the insurrectionary States are to be held to labor and returned to their masters, if captured by the Confederate forces, while duly enrolled and mustered into, and
Bainbridge (search for this): chapter 106
ogically flows therefrom, in natural sequence, that the Confederate States can have no claim upon the negro soldiers captured by them from the armies of the United States, because of the former ownership of them by their citizens or subjects, and only claim such as result, under the laws of war, from their captor merely. Do the Confederate authorities claim the right to reduce to a state of slavery free men, prisoners of war captured by them? This claim our fathers fought against under Bainbridge and Decatur, when set up by the Barbary powers on the Northern shore of Africa, about the year 1800, and in 1864 their children will hardly yield it upon their own soil. This point I will not pursue further, because I understand you to repudiate the idea that you will reduce free men to slaves because of capture in war, and that you base the claim of the Confederate authorities to re-enslave our negro soldiers when captured by you, upon the jus post limini, or that principle of the law
1 2 3 4