Your search returned 14 results in 14 document sections:

1 2
The Annals of the Civil War Written by Leading Participants North and South (ed. Alexander Kelly McClure), The Baltimore riots. (search)
nion man, although he had been elected as a Pro-slavery Know-Nothing. His loyalty was suspected at Washington, but he lent no countenance whatever to the proposed resistance to the Federal invasion. After the event, Governor Hicks was the first man, however, to suggest the armed resistance which he afterward deprecated with so much honor; and, in this connection, I cannot forbear printing the following curious document written by him: State of Maryland, Executive chamber, Annapolis, November 9th, 1860. Hon. E. H. Webster. My Dear Sir :--I have pleasure in acknowledging receipt of your favor introducing a very clever gentleman to my acquaintance (though a Democrat). I regret to say that, at this time, we have no arms on hand to distribute, but assure you that, at the earliest possible moment, your company shall have arms; they have complied with all required of them on their part. We have some delay in consequence of contracts with Georgia and Alabama ahead of us, and we expect,
Benson J. Lossing, Pictorial Field Book of the Civil War. Volume 1., Chapter 8: attitude of the Border Slave-labor States, and of the Free-labor States. (search)
[the election of Mr. Lincoln] our fathers seceded from Great Britain; and they left revolution organized in every State, to act whenever it is demanded by public opinion. The confederation is held together only by public opinion. Each State is organized as a complete government, holding the purse and wielding the sword, possessing the right to break the tie of the confederation as a nation might break a treaty, and to repel coercion as a nation might repel invasion. --New York Herald, November 9, 1860. At a large political meeting in Philadelphia, on the 16th of January, 1861, one of the resolutions declared:--We are utterly opposed to any such compulsion as is demanded by a portion of the Republican party; and the Democratic party of the North will, by all constitutional means, and with its moral and political influence, oppose any such extreme policy, or a fratricidal war thus to be inaugurated. On the 22d of February, a political State Convention was held at Harrisburg, the ca
Horace Greeley, The American Conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860-65: its Causes, Incidents, and Results: Intended to exhibit especially its moral and political phases with the drift and progress of American opinion respecting human slavery from 1776 to the close of the War for the Union. Volume I., Xxiii. peace efforts at the North. (search)
itually represented as an immense boon conferred on the Free States by the Slave, whose withdrawal would whelm us all in bankruptcy and ruin — that it might do something toward allaying the Southern inflammation to have it distinctly and plainly set forth that the North had no desire to enforce upon the South the maintenance of an abhorred, detested Union. Accordingly — the second day after Mr. Lincoln's election had been assured at the polls — the following leading article appeared November 9, 1860. in The New York Tribune: going to go.--The people of the United States have indicated, according to the forms prescribed by the Constitution, their desire that Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois, shill be their next President, and Hannibal Hamlin, of Maine, their Vice-President. A very large plurality of the popular vote has been cast for them, and a decided majority of Electors chosen, who will undoubtedly vote for and elect them on the first Wednesday in December next. The electoral <
Horace Greeley, The American Conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860-65: its Causes, Incidents, and Results: Intended to exhibit especially its moral and political phases with the drift and progress of American opinion respecting human slavery from 1776 to the close of the War for the Union. Volume I., chapter 29 (search)
isive vote of 89 to 45, refused to pass an Ordinance of Secession. Still, her conspirators worked on, like those of the other Border States, and claimed, not without plausible grounds, that they were making headway. Richmond was the focus of their intrigues, as it was of her Slave-trade; but it was boasted that, whereas two of her three delegates to the Convention were chosen as Unionists, she would now give a decided majority for Secession. The Richmond Whig, The Richmond Whig of November 9, 1860, had the following: Because the Union was created by the voluntary consent of the original States, it does not follow that such consent can be withdrawn at will by any single party to the compact, and its obligations and duties, its burdens and demands, be avoided. A government resting on such a basis would be as unstable as the ever-shifting sands. The sport of every popular excitement, the victim of every conflicting interest, of plotting ambition or momentary impulse, it would
Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Chapter 9: (search)
ave a right to do what another party has a right to prevent. We must ever resist the asserted right of any State to remain in the Union and nullify or defy the laws thereof: to withdraw from the Union is quite another matter. And, whenever a considerable section of our Union shall deliberately resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercive measures designed to keep her in. We hope never to live in a republic whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets. New York Tribune of November 9, 1860, quoted in The American Conflict, Vol. I, Chapt. XXIII, p. 359. The only liberty taken with this extract has been that of presenting certain parts of it in italics. Nothing that has ever been said by the author of this work, in the foregoing chapters, on the floor of the Senate, or elsewhere, more distinctly asserted the right of secession. Nothing that has been quoted from Hamilton, or Madison, or Marshall, or John Quincy Adams, more emphatically repudiates the claim of right to
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4, Chapter 44: Secession.—schemes of compromise.—Civil War.—Chairman of foreign relations Committee.—Dr. Lieber.—November, 1860– April, 1861. (search)
l. Jeff. Davis says that but two men in Washington are frightened,—the President and Scott. I enjoyed Andrew's message. At last Massachusetts is herself! Horace Greeley, appalled with the prospect of civil war with an uncertain issue, hastened to bid the insurgent States to go in peace, while at the same time rejecting any compromise. He treated secession as a revolutionary right, and discountenanced coercive measures for keeping the seceding States in the Union. New York Tribune, Nov. 9, 26, 30, Dec. 17, 1860; Feb. 23, 1861. Greeley says in his History that several other Republican journals, including some of the most influential, held similar language, and maintained a position not unlike that of the Tribune. Later, in the New York Tribune, Aug. 23, 1865, Greeley explained his position in 1860-1861. The Boston Advertiser (Nov. 12, Dec. 12, 1860; Jan. 24, 1861), a conservative journal, published leaders of the same tenor as the Tribune's articles. Among Sumner's corres
Col. O. M. Roberts, Confederate Military History, a library of Confederate States Military History: Volume 12.1, Alabama (ed. Clement Anselm Evans), Chapter 2: (search)
d best informed of the Northern journalists, who must be regarded as an able exponent of the sentiments of the people, was outspoken even to rashness in upholding the doctrine of the right of secession. Indeed his course would seem to prove that he did all in his power to hasten the Southern States into secession. We give extracts from the New York Tribune, Mr. Greeley's paper, beginning with the date when it was first known that Mr. Lincoln was certainly elected. New York Tribune, November 9, 1860.—If the cotton States shall become satisfied that they can do better out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting them go in peace. The right to secede may be a revolutionary one, but it exists nevertheless. [And again in the same issue of his widely-circulated and influential paper, Mr. Greeley said:] We must ever resist the asserted right of any State to remain in the Union and nullify or defy the laws thereof. To withdraw from the Union is quite another matter; and whenever a
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 16. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), chapter 1.35 (search)
les set forth by that convention were signed by a number of the leading men of that day, and amongst them Nathan Dane, founder of the professorship of law in the Cambridge University, and who was author of the ordinance for the government of the Northwestern Territory in 1787. He, like Rawle, understood what was meant by the powers of the Constitution. He lived in their day and with them, and we may regard his utterances as an authoritative construction of the instrument. On the 9th of November, 1860, Horace Greeley wrote: The telegraph informs us that most of the cotton States are meditating a withdrawal from the Union because of Lincoln's election. Very well, they have a right to meditate, and meditation is a profitable employment of leisure. We have a chronic, invincible disbelief in disunion as a remedy for either Northern or Southern grievances. We cannot see any necessary connection between the alleged disease and the ultra heroic remedy. Still we say, if any one meditat
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 17. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Life, services and character of Jefferson Davis. (search)
ton and Hamilton, on the one side, to George Clinton and George Mason, on the other, who regarded the new system as anything but an experiment entered upon by the States, and from which each and every State had the right to peaceably withdraw—a right which was very likely to be exercised. Contemporary Northern opinions of secession. Recall the contemporary opinions of Northern publicists and leading journals. The New York Herald considered coercion out of the question. On the 9th of November, 1860, the New York Tribune, Horace Greeley being the editor, said: If the cotton States shall decide that they can do better out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting them go in peace. The right to secede may be a revolutionary one, but it exists nevertheless, and we do not see how one party can have the right to do what another party has a right to prevent. We must ever resist the asserted right of any State to remain in the Union and nullify or defy the laws thereof; to w
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 28. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Official report of the history Committee of the Grand Camp C. V., Department of Virginia. (search)
lear moral right to do so. And we know that this man was one of the foremost of our oppressors during the war, although his kindness to Mr. Davis and others after the war, we think, showed that he knew he had done wrong. And yet, he had the audacity (and may we not justly add mendacity, too?) to say, after the war, that he never at any moment of his life had imagined that a single State, or a dozen States, could rightfully dissolve the Union. Comment is surely unnecessary. On November the 9th, 1860, the New York Herald said: Each State is organized as a complete government, holding the purse and wielding the sword; possessing the right to break the tie of the confederation as a nation might break a treaty, and to repel coercion as a nation might repel invasion. * * * Coercion, if it were possible, is out of the question. Both President Buchanan and his Attorney-General, the afterwards famous Edwin M. Stanton, decided at the same time that there was no power under the
1 2