hide Matching Documents

The documents where this entity occurs most often are shown below. Click on a document to open it.

Document Max. Freq Min. Freq
Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History (ed. Benson Lossing) 1,468 0 Browse Search
Brigadier-General Ellison Capers, Confederate Military History, a library of Confederate States Military History: Volume 5, South Carolina (ed. Clement Anselm Evans) 1,286 0 Browse Search
Benson J. Lossing, Pictorial Field Book of the Civil War. Volume 1. 656 0 Browse Search
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. 566 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government 440 0 Browse Search
Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 1. (ed. Frank Moore) 416 0 Browse Search
C. Edwards Lester, Life and public services of Charles Sumner: Born Jan. 6, 1811. Died March 11, 1874. 360 0 Browse Search
Alfred Roman, The military operations of General Beauregard in the war between the states, 1861 to 1865 298 0 Browse Search
A Roster of General Officers , Heads of Departments, Senators, Representatives , Military Organizations, &c., &c., in Confederate Service during the War between the States. (ed. Charles C. Jones, Jr. Late Lieut. Colonel of Artillery, C. S. A.) 298 0 Browse Search
Hon. J. L. M. Curry , LL.D., William Robertson Garrett , A. M. , Ph.D., Confederate Military History, a library of Confederate States Military History: Volume 1.1, Legal Justification of the South in secession, The South as a factor in the territorial expansion of the United States (ed. Clement Anselm Evans) 272 0 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Browsing named entities in Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. You can also browse the collection for South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) or search for South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) in all documents.

Your search returned 220 results in 33 document sections:

1 2 3 4
oceeded to enact, laws forbidding the importation of slaves. South Carolina subsequently (in 1803) repealed her law forbidding the importat The geographical situation of our country, said Mr. Lowndes of South Carolina in the House of Representatives on February 14, 1804, is not unect of the repeal was to permit the importation of negroes into South Carolina during the interval from 1803 to 1808. It is probable that an ew Hampshire, one from Vermont, two from Virginia, and one from South Carolina.—Benton's Abridgment, Vol. III, p. 519. No division on the onsisting of representatives from Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Kentucky, and New York, and the delegate from the Indiana terriel Macon of North Carolina, John Gaillard and William Smith of South Carolina. In the House Philip P. Barbour, John Randolph, John Tyler, and William S. Archer of Virginia, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina (one of the authors of the Constitution), Thomas W. Cobb of Georgia, and o
Mississippi, as soon as her Convention can meet, pass an ordinance of secession, thus placing herself by the side of South Carolina, regardless of the action of other States; or shall she endeavor to hold South Carolina in check, and delay action heSouth Carolina in check, and delay action herself, until other States can get ready, through their conventions, to unite with them, and then, on a given day and at a given hour, by concert of action, all the States willing to do so, secede in a body? Upon the one side, it was argued that SoSouth Carolina could not be induced to delay action a single moment beyond the meeting of her Convention, and that our fate should be hers, and to delay action would be to have her crushed by the Federal Government; whereas, by the earliest action poss of the people of all those states took their seats in the House, and they were all represented in the Senate, except South Carolina, whose Senators had tendered their resignation to the government immediately on the announcement of the result of th
on the following day, retired from their seats in Congress. The people of the other planting states had been only waiting in the lingering hope that some action might be taken by Congress to avert the necessity for action similar to that of South Carolina. In view of the failure of all overtures for conciliation during the first month of the session, they were now making their final preparations for secession. This was generally admitted to be an unquestionable right appertaining to their sod; and how is her concurrence to be obtained? She must be made the center of the Confederacy. Vermont and New Jersey would follow of course, and Rhode Island of necessity. Pickering to Cabot, Life of Cabot, pp. 338-340. Substituting South Carolina for Massachusetts; Virginia for New York; Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama, for New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island; Kentucky for New Jersey, etc., we find the suggestions of 1860-‘61 only a reproduction of those thus outlined nearly si
the enlarged purposes which it was intended to effect; and that they report such an act to the General Assembly of this State, as, when agreed to by them, will effectually provide for the same. (In the case of this state alone nothing is said of a report to Congress. Neither North Carolina nor any other state, however, fails to make mention of the necessity of a submission of any action taken to the several states for ratification.) The commissions issued to the representatives of South Carolina by the governor refer to an act of the legislature of that state authorizing their appointment to meet such deputies or commissioners as may be appointed and authorized by other of the United States, at the time and place designated, and to join with them in devising and discussing all such alterations, clauses, articles, and provisions, as may be thought necessary to render the Federal Constitution entirely adequate to the actual situation and future good government of the Confederate S
merica. This was accomplished on February 7, 1788. Maryland followed on April 28, and South Carolina on May 23, in equivalent expressions, the ratification of the former being made by the delegalf of the people of this State; that of the latter, in convention of the people of the State of South Carolina, by their representatives, . . . in the name and behalf of the people of this State. But South Carolina, like Massachusetts, demanded certain amendments, and for greater assurance accompanied her ordinance of ratification with the following distinct assertion of the principle afterward this state, also, the opposition was formidable (the final vote being 57 to 46), and, as in South Carolina, it was explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the alf of the people of Virginia. In so doing, however, like Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, Virginia demanded certain amendments as a more explicit guarantee against consolidation, an
lonies as one people. Plainly, it does no such thing. The misconception is so palpable as scarcely to admit of serious answer. The Declaration of Independence opens with a general proposition. One people is equivalent to saying any people. The use of the correlatives one and another was the simple and natural way of stating this general proposition. One people applies, and was obviously intended to apply, to all cases of the same category—to that of New Hampshire, or Delaware, or South Carolina, or of any other people existing or to exist, and whether acting separately or in concert. It applies to any case, and all cases, of dissolution of political bands, as well as to the case of the British colonies. It does not, either directly or by implication, assert their unification, and has no bearing whatever upon the question. When the colonies united in sending representatives to a Congress in Philadelphia, there was no purpose—no suggestion of a purpose— to merge their separ<
might depend, and which has been so grossly perverted in later years from its true intent. The original language of the preamble, reported to the convention by a committee of five appointed to prepare the Constitution, as we find it in the proceedings of August 6, 1787, was as follows: We, the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare, and establish, the following Constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity. There can be no question here what was meant: it was the people of the States, designated by name, that were to ordain, declare, and establish the compact of union for themselves and their posterity. There is no ambiguity nor uncertainty in the language, nor was there any difference in the convention as to the use of it. The preamble, as perfected, was submi
the Government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers or as inserted merely for greater caution. South Carolina expressed the idea thus: This Convention doth also declare that no section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a construction that the States do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them and vested in the General Government of the Union. North Carolina proposed it in these terms: Each State in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States
ve the compact. A bargain can not be broken on one side, and still bind the other side. Curtis's Life of Webster, Chapt. XXXVII, Vol. II, pp. 518, 519. The principles which have been set forth in the foregoing chapters, although they had come to be considered as peculiarly Southern, were not sectional in their origin. In the beginning and earlier years of our history they were cherished as faithfully and guarded as jealously in Massachusetts and New Hampshire as in Virginia or South Carolina. It was in these principles that I was nurtured. I have frankly proclaimed them during my whole life, always contending in the Senate of the United States against what I believed to be the mistaken construction of the Constitution taught by Webster and his adherents. While I honored the genius of that great man, and held friendly personal relations with him, I considered his doctrines on these points—or rather the doctrines advocated by him during the most conspicuous and influential
failure State Interpositions the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions their endorsement by the people in the presidential Elections of 1800 and ensuing terms South Carolina and Calhoun the Compromise of 1833 action of Massachusetts in 1843-45 opinions of John Quincy Adams necessity for secession. From the earliest period,on to sectional. At a critical and memorable period, that pure spirit, luminous intellect, and devoted adherent of the Constitution, the great statesman of South Carolina, invoked this remedy of state interposition against the Tariff Act of 1828, which was deemed injurious and oppressive to his state. No purpose was then decla for the sovereignty of states and of regard for the limitations of the Constitution—to prevent a conflict of arms. The compromise of 1833 was adopted, which South Carolina agreed to accept, the principle for which she contended being virtually conceded. Meantime there had been no lack, as we have already seen, of assertions o
1 2 3 4