hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity (current method)
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position
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
Dec 114 0 Browse Search
Nov 92 0 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 30 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 28 0 Browse Search
McClellan 15 1 Browse Search
J. T. Westbrook 12 0 Browse Search
Chris Rogers 12 0 Browse Search
Slidell 12 2 Browse Search
Humphrey Marshall 11 1 Browse Search
Cook 10 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: January 2, 1862., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 28 total hits in 12 results.

1 2
November 28th (search for this): article 5
hts of neutrals, which she has taken a leading part in establishing, requires revision, and with a suitable disposition on her part to establish these rights upon a just, humane and philosophic basis. Indeed, I am happy to see an intimation in one of the leading metropolitan journals which goes far to justify this inference. Referring to the decision of the English Admiralty Courts, now quoted in defence of the seizure of the American rebels on board the Trent, the London Times, of the 28th of November, says: "So far as the authorities go, the testimony of international law writers is all one way; that a belligerent war cruiser has the right to stop and visit and search any merchant ship upon the high seas. * * * But it must be remembered that these decisions were given under circumstances very different from those which now occur. Steamers in those days did not exist, and mail vessels, carrying letters wherein all the nations of the world have immediate interest, were unknow
December 2nd, 1861 AD (search for this): article 5
put herself in a false position by asking us to do it. In either case, therefore, I do not see how the friendly relations of the two governments are in any immediate danger of being disturbed. The over prompt recognition, as belligerents, of a body of men, however large, so long as they constituted a manifest minority of the nation, wounded the feelings of my countrymen deeply I will not attempt to deny, nor that that act, with some of its logical consequences which have already occurred, has planted in the breasts of many the suspicion that their kindred in England wish them evil rather than good, but the statesmen to whom the political interests of these two great people are confided act upon higher responsibilities and with better lights, and you may rest assured that an event so mutually disastrous as a war between England and America cannot occur without some other and graver provocation than has yet been given by either nation. Winfield Scott. Paris December 2, 1861.
England (search for this): article 5
receive an unfriendly construction from England. Her statesmen will not question the legal right of an American vessel-of-war to search any commercial vessel suspected of transporting contraband of war; that right has never been surrendered by England, it was even guaranteed to her by the treaty of Paris, and British guns, frowning down nearly every strait and inland sea upon the globe, are conclusive evidence that she regards this right as one, the efficacy of which may be not yet entirely e liberal recognition of the rights of neutrals than any of the other great maritime nations have yet been disposed to make. But till those rights are secured by proper international guarantees, upon a comprehensive and enduring basis, of course England cannot complain of an act for which, in all its material bearings, her own naval history affords such numerous precedents. Whether the captives from the Trent were contraband of war or not, is a question which the two Governments can have n
Mason (search for this): article 5
General Scott's letter on the Mason-Slidell affair. The following is a copy of the letter of Gen. Scott that appeared in Europe, to which frequent allusion has been made: To ----,Esq.: My Dear Sir: You were right in doubting the declaration imputed to me, to with that the Cabinet at Washington had given orders to seize Messrs. Mason and Slidell even under a neutral flag; for I was not even aware that the government had had that point under consideration: At the time of my leaving New York it was not known that the San Jacinto had returned to the American seas; and it was generally supposed those persons had escaped to Cuba for the purpose of re-embarking in the Nashville, in pursuit of which vessel the James Adger and other cruisers had been dispatched. I think I can satisfy you in a few words that you have no serious occasion to feel concerned about our relations with England if, as her rulers profess, she has no disposition to encourage the dissensions in Amer
Paris (search for this): article 5
put herself in a false position by asking us to do it. In either case, therefore, I do not see how the friendly relations of the two governments are in any immediate danger of being disturbed. The over prompt recognition, as belligerents, of a body of men, however large, so long as they constituted a manifest minority of the nation, wounded the feelings of my countrymen deeply I will not attempt to deny, nor that that act, with some of its logical consequences which have already occurred, has planted in the breasts of many the suspicion that their kindred in England wish them evil rather than good, but the statesmen to whom the political interests of these two great people are confided act upon higher responsibilities and with better lights, and you may rest assured that an event so mutually disastrous as a war between England and America cannot occur without some other and graver provocation than has yet been given by either nation. Winfield Scott. Paris December 2, 1861.
Winfield Scott (search for this): article 5
General Scott's letter on the Mason-Slidell affair. The following is a copy of the letter of Gen. Scott that appeared in Europe, to which frequent allusion has been made: To ----,Esq.: My Dear Sir: You were right in doubting the declaration imputed to me, to with that the Cabinet at Washington had given orders to Gen. Scott that appeared in Europe, to which frequent allusion has been made: To ----,Esq.: My Dear Sir: You were right in doubting the declaration imputed to me, to with that the Cabinet at Washington had given orders to seize Messrs. Mason and Slidell even under a neutral flag; for I was not even aware that the government had had that point under consideration: At the time of my leaving New York it was not known that the San Jacinto had returned to the American seas; and it was generally supposed those persons had escaped to Cuba for the purpose ese two great people are confided act upon higher responsibilities and with better lights, and you may rest assured that an event so mutually disastrous as a war between England and America cannot occur without some other and graver provocation than has yet been given by either nation. Winfield Scott. Paris December 2, 1861.
Seward (search for this): article 5
its material bearings, her own naval history affords such numerous precedents. Whether the captives from the Trent were contraband of war or not, is a question which the two Governments can have no serious difficulty in agreeing upon. If Mr. Seward cannot satisfy Earl Russell that they were, I have no doubt Earl Russell will be able to satisfy Mr. Seward that they were not. It they were, as all authorities concur in admitting, agents of the rebellion, it will be difficult to satisfy imparMr. Seward that they were not. It they were, as all authorities concur in admitting, agents of the rebellion, it will be difficult to satisfy impartial minds that they were any less contraband than a file of rebel soldiers or a battery of hostile cannon. But even should there be a difference of opinion upon this point, it is very clear that our Government had sufficient grounds for presuming itself in the right to escape the suspicion of having wantonly violated the relations of amity which the two countries profess a desire to preserve and cultivate. The pretence that we ought to have taken the Trent into port, and had her conde
Slidell (search for this): article 5
General Scott's letter on the Mason-Slidell affair. The following is a copy of the letter of Gen. Scott that appeared in Europe, to which frequent allusion has been made: To ----,Esq.: My Dear Sir: You were right in doubting the declaration imputed to me, to with that the Cabinet at Washington had given orders to seize Messrs. Mason and Slidell even under a neutral flag; for I was not even aware that the government had had that point under consideration: At the time of my leaving New York it was not known that the San Jacinto had returned to the American seas; and it was generally supposed those persons had escaped to Cuba for the purpose of re-embarking in the Nashville, in pursuit of which vessel the James Adger and other cruisers had been dispatched. I think I can satisfy you in a few words that you have no serious occasion to feel concerned about our relations with England if, as her rulers profess, she has no disposition to encourage the dissensions in Amer
England (United Kingdom) (search for this): article 5
ther cruisers had been dispatched. I think I can satisfy you in a few words that you have no serious occasion to feel concerned about our relations with England if, as her rulers profess, she has no disposition to encourage the dissensions in America. In the first place, it is almost superfluous to say to you that every instinct of prudence as well as of good neighborhood prompts our government to regard no honorable sacrifice too great for the preservation of the friendship of Great Britain. This must be obvious to all the world. At no period of our history has her friendship been of more importance to our people — at no period has our government been in a condition to make greater concessions to preserve it. The two nations are united by interests and sympathies — commercial, social, political, and religious — almost as the two arms to one body, and no one is so ignorant as not to know that what harms one must harm the other in a corresponding degree. I am persuaded<
Cuba (Cuba) (search for this): article 5
equent allusion has been made: To ----,Esq.: My Dear Sir: You were right in doubting the declaration imputed to me, to with that the Cabinet at Washington had given orders to seize Messrs. Mason and Slidell even under a neutral flag; for I was not even aware that the government had had that point under consideration: At the time of my leaving New York it was not known that the San Jacinto had returned to the American seas; and it was generally supposed those persons had escaped to Cuba for the purpose of re-embarking in the Nashville, in pursuit of which vessel the James Adger and other cruisers had been dispatched. I think I can satisfy you in a few words that you have no serious occasion to feel concerned about our relations with England if, as her rulers profess, she has no disposition to encourage the dissensions in America. In the first place, it is almost superfluous to say to you that every instinct of prudence as well as of good neighborhood prompts our go
1 2