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
Murat 64 0 Browse Search
Davoust 47 1 Browse Search
Eckmuhl (Bavaria, Germany) 16 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 14 0 Browse Search
Sherman 10 0 Browse Search
Branchville (South Carolina, United States) 8 0 Browse Search
House 8 0 Browse Search
Napoleon 8 0 Browse Search
Lewis Porter 6 0 Browse Search
Francis P. Blair 5 1 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: February 4, 1865., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 10 total hits in 4 results.

New England (United States) (search for this): article 2
Rebellion. Even Lord John Russell confesses his inability to see any cause for the excessive indignation manifested in the North at the crime of "rebellion." England, he observes, rebelled against Charles I.; rebelled against James II.; and the people of New England, not content with these two rebellions, rebelled against George III. Without deciding whether those rebellions were justifiable, or whether they were wrong, or whether the Southern rebellion is justifiable or not, Earl Russell says: "The mere fact of rebellion is not, in my eyes, a crime of so deep a dye that we must renounce all fellowship and communion and relationship with those who have been guilty of it. I own I cannot but wonder to see the offspring of three rebellions really speaking like the Czar of Russia, the Sultan of Turkey, or Louis XIV. himself, of the dreadful crime and guilt of rebellion." What adds to the audacity of this outcry, is the simple fact that there has been no rebellion at all, unle
Turquie (Turkey) (search for this): article 2
rebelled against George III. Without deciding whether those rebellions were justifiable, or whether they were wrong, or whether the Southern rebellion is justifiable or not, Earl Russell says: "The mere fact of rebellion is not, in my eyes, a crime of so deep a dye that we must renounce all fellowship and communion and relationship with those who have been guilty of it. I own I cannot but wonder to see the offspring of three rebellions really speaking like the Czar of Russia, the Sultan of Turkey, or Louis XIV. himself, of the dreadful crime and guilt of rebellion." What adds to the audacity of this outcry, is the simple fact that there has been no rebellion at all, unless it be that of the Black Republican party against the American Constitution. There must be allegiance to a government acknowledged before resistance of its authority becomes rebellion. The States never owed any such allegiance to their agency at Washington. They were the sovereigns, to whom, and to whom alo
Russia (Russia) (search for this): article 2
these two rebellions, rebelled against George III. Without deciding whether those rebellions were justifiable, or whether they were wrong, or whether the Southern rebellion is justifiable or not, Earl Russell says: "The mere fact of rebellion is not, in my eyes, a crime of so deep a dye that we must renounce all fellowship and communion and relationship with those who have been guilty of it. I own I cannot but wonder to see the offspring of three rebellions really speaking like the Czar of Russia, the Sultan of Turkey, or Louis XIV. himself, of the dreadful crime and guilt of rebellion." What adds to the audacity of this outcry, is the simple fact that there has been no rebellion at all, unless it be that of the Black Republican party against the American Constitution. There must be allegiance to a government acknowledged before resistance of its authority becomes rebellion. The States never owed any such allegiance to their agency at Washington. They were the sovereigns, to
John Russell (search for this): article 2
Rebellion. Even Lord John Russell confesses his inability to see any cause for the excessive indignation manifested in the North at the crime of "rebellion." England, he observes, rebelled against Charles I.; rebelled against James II.; and the people of New England, not content with these two rebellions, rebelled against George III. Without deciding whether those rebellions were justifiable, or whether they were wrong, or whether the Southern rebellion is justifiable or not, Earl Russell says: "The mere fact of rebellion is not, in my eyes, a crime of so deep a dye that we must renounce all fellowship and communion and relationship with those who have been guilty of it. I own I cannot but wonder to see the offspring of three rebellions really speaking like the Czar of Russia, the Sultan of Turkey, or Louis XIV. himself, of the dreadful crime and guilt of rebellion." What adds to the audacity of this outcry, is the simple fact that there has been no rebellion at all, unle