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
United States (United States) 60 0 Browse Search
Missouri (Missouri, United States) 22 0 Browse Search
James M. Mason 21 1 Browse Search
Alvin Finch 20 0 Browse Search
France (France) 14 0 Browse Search
Slidell 14 2 Browse Search
Jefferson Thompson 11 1 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 11 1 Browse Search
John Maguire 10 0 Browse Search
George B. McClellan 10 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: November 29, 1861., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 67 total hits in 12 results.

1 2
West Indies (search for this): article 1
is, most assuredly, will not do for England, who has already recognized the existence of a state of war in this country, acknowledged the Confederate States as belligerents, and proclaimed her own neutrality, thus giving to Confederates and Federals an equal claim to the protection of her flag, wherever found beneath its folds on land or at sea. This neutrality, thus proclaimed, England may contend has been shamefully violated, by tearing passengers from a British steamer, belonging to the West India Line, on its way home, and therefore not possible to be suspected of having contraband articles on board. She may say, moreover that there is an extradition treaty between her and the United States, that the class of criminals to be given up and the forms in which the delivery is to be effected, are therein expressly designated That if Messrs. Slidell and Mason come within this category, they must first be proved to do so, by a trial in the proper form. That therefore, under any circumst
England (United Kingdom) (search for this): article 1
enough, it commits the Government of the United States to a line of action which it always reprobated on the part of Great Britain. For, during the wars with the First Napoleon, Great Britain assumed and exercised the right to visit American shipsGreat Britain assumed and exercised the right to visit American ships, and removed by force, from their decks, all persons found, or even suspected, to have been born British subjects, while the United States not only denied the right, but went to war rather than submit to its exercise. Many attemps have been maolution in the public opinion of France. The present question is purely a question between the United States and Great Britain. It has no basis either in the law of nations or the obligation of treaties. International law leaves it in litigation, and treaties are silent on the subject. The Federal Government and the Government of Great Britain have changed places. Both are in opposition to themselves. The one does what it has always asserted no Government had the right to do, the oth
United States (United States) (search for this): article 1
sit. They have been often asserted by the United States, and on one occasion they went to war in d been affirmed by the courts of these same United States as often as they have had occasion to takey enough, it commits the Government of the United States to a line of action which it always reprobhave been born British subjects, while the United States not only denied the right, but went to war question is purely a question between the United States and Great Britain. It has no basis eithersition always heretofore maintained by the United States. Perhaps he designed to drive England to urope in the capacity of envoys from the Confederate States establishes their guilt. But this, mostof war in this country, acknowledged the Confederate States as belligerents, and proclaimed her own an extradition treaty between her and the United States, that the class of criminals to be given u12, and that the assumption of them by the United States, under the present circumstances, is an in
France (France) (search for this): article 1
merican doctrine is fully set forth in Mr. Webster's famous letter to Lord Ashburton, and in Gen. Cass's protest against the ratification of the quintuple treaty. With respect to the latter, it is well known to have produced a powerful effect in France, and, backed by a pamphlet written by Gen. Cass and published in Paris, to have caused the rejection of the treaty by the French Chambers. The ground assumed both by Mr. Webster and Gen. Cass, afford no countenance to the new doctrine of Seward.ged in the slave trade. He represented so powerfully the evil uses to which the right thus sought might be perverted by a great maritime power, to the ruin of all commerce but its own, as to produce a complete resolution in the public opinion of France. The present question is purely a question between the United States and Great Britain. It has no basis either in the law of nations or the obligation of treaties. International law leaves it in litigation, and treaties are silent on the s
James M. Mason (search for this): article 1
make the British people and Government fall in love with the Yankees, nor will it arouse any very strong feeling of sympathy or affection on the part of any other European Government. Seward, when called to account, will say that he arrested Messrs. Mason and Slidell because they were guilty of treason and rebellion, and will say that the very fact of their voyage to Europe in the capacity of envoys from the Confederate States establishes their guilt. But this, most assuredly, will not do foray say, moreover that there is an extradition treaty between her and the United States, that the class of criminals to be given up and the forms in which the delivery is to be effected, are therein expressly designated That if Messrs. Slidell and Mason come within this category, they must first be proved to do so, by a trial in the proper form. That therefore, under any circumstances, such extradition could not be made at sea, where there was no officer, no court, and no jury. That moreover t
Seward (search for this): article 1
ut it continues to be agitated in the Northern papers, and the National Intelligencer, under the immediate inspiration of Seward, publishes a whole broadside to justify the act. We have, therefore, changed our first resolution, and shall proceed to e the French Chambers. The ground assumed both by Mr. Webster and Gen. Cass, afford no countenance to the new doctrine of Seward. The latter more especially would not admit the right of visit, even under the pretext of ascertaining the character of ed no Government had the right to do, the other suffers what its adversary always maintained it had no right to inflict. Seward having shouldered the responsibility, it may be asked, more pertinently than before, what he meant by the act? Perhaps hnkees, nor will it arouse any very strong feeling of sympathy or affection on the part of any other European Government. Seward, when called to account, will say that he arrested Messrs. Mason and Slidell because they were guilty of treason and rebe
Napoleon (search for this): article 1
— the right namely, to intercept contraband of war on its passage to the enemy in a neutral vessel. This, however, is merely an exception to a general rule. The question of prize is always decided by the courts of the country making the prize. The present, however, is a question of a totally different character singularly enough, it commits the Government of the United States to a line of action which it always reprobated on the part of Great Britain. For, during the wars with the First Napoleon, Great Britain assumed and exercised the right to visit American ships, and removed by force, from their decks, all persons found, or even suspected, to have been born British subjects, while the United States not only denied the right, but went to war rather than submit to its exercise. Many attemps have been made within the present century to obtain a definitive settlement of the disputed right, but always without success. The American doctrine is fully set forth in Mr. Webster's fa
Webster (search for this): article 1
, but went to war rather than submit to its exercise. Many attemps have been made within the present century to obtain a definitive settlement of the disputed right, but always without success. The American doctrine is fully set forth in Mr. Webster's famous letter to Lord Ashburton, and in Gen. Cass's protest against the ratification of the quintuple treaty. With respect to the latter, it is well known to have produced a powerful effect in France, and, backed by a pamphlet written by Gen. Cass and published in Paris, to have caused the rejection of the treaty by the French Chambers. The ground assumed both by Mr. Webster and Gen. Cass, afford no countenance to the new doctrine of Seward. The latter more especially would not admit the right of visit, even under the pretext of ascertaining the character of a vessel suspected of being engaged in the slave trade. He represented so powerfully the evil uses to which the right thus sought might be perverted by a great maritime po
Slidell (search for this): article 1
h people and Government fall in love with the Yankees, nor will it arouse any very strong feeling of sympathy or affection on the part of any other European Government. Seward, when called to account, will say that he arrested Messrs. Mason and Slidell because they were guilty of treason and rebellion, and will say that the very fact of their voyage to Europe in the capacity of envoys from the Confederate States establishes their guilt. But this, most assuredly, will not do for England, who hn board. She may say, moreover that there is an extradition treaty between her and the United States, that the class of criminals to be given up and the forms in which the delivery is to be effected, are therein expressly designated That if Messrs. Slidell and Mason come within this category, they must first be proved to do so, by a trial in the proper form. That therefore, under any circumstances, such extradition could not be made at sea, where there was no officer, no court, and no jury.
Cass (search for this): article 1
settlement of the disputed right, but always without success. The American doctrine is fully set forth in Mr. Webster's famous letter to Lord Ashburton, and in Gen. Cass's protest against the ratification of the quintuple treaty. With respect to the latter, it is well known to have produced a powerful effect in France, and, backed by a pamphlet written by Gen. Cass and published in Paris, to have caused the rejection of the treaty by the French Chambers. The ground assumed both by Mr. Webster and Gen. Cass, afford no countenance to the new doctrine of Seward. The latter more especially would not admit the right of visit, even under the pretext of ascertGen. Cass, afford no countenance to the new doctrine of Seward. The latter more especially would not admit the right of visit, even under the pretext of ascertaining the character of a vessel suspected of being engaged in the slave trade. He represented so powerfully the evil uses to which the right thus sought might be perverted by a great maritime power, to the ruin of all commerce but its own, as to produce a complete resolution in the public opinion of France. The present quest
1 2