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) 1,030 0 Browse Search
Colonel William Preston Johnston, The Life of General Albert Sidney Johnston : His Service in the Armies of the United States, the Republic of Texas, and the Confederate States. 578 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. 482 0 Browse Search
Benson J. Lossing, Pictorial Field Book of the Civil War. Volume 1. 198 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 II. 152 0 Browse Search
Admiral David D. Porter, The Naval History of the Civil War. 116 0 Browse Search
Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events, Diary from December 17, 1860 - April 30, 1864 (ed. Frank Moore) 96 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government 96 0 Browse Search
Benson J. Lossing, Pictorial Field Book of the Civil War. Volume 2. 94 0 Browse Search
Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 2. (ed. Frank Moore) 92 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 Texas (Texas, United States) or search for Texas (Texas, United States) in all documents.

Your search returned 48 results in 19 document sections:

1 2
ia as a state of the Union before it had acquired the requisite population, and while it was mainly under the control of a military organization sent from New York during the war with Mexico and disbanded in California upon the restoration of peace. The inconsistency of the argument against the extension of the line was exhibited in the division of the territory of Texas by that parallel, and payment to the state of money to secure her consent to the partition of her domain. In the case of Texas, the North had everything to gain and nothing to lose by the application of the practice of geographical compromise on an arbitrary line. In the case of California, the conditions were reversed; the South might have been the gainer and the North the loser by a recognition of the same rule. The compensation which it was alleged that the South received was a more effective law for the rendition of fugitives from service or labor. But it is to be remarked that this law provided for the exe
o be administered strictly for the general welfare, there would have been no ground for complaint of the result. Under the old Confederation the Southern states had a large excess of territory. The acquisition of Louisiana, of Florida, and of Texas, afterward greatly increased this excess. The generosity and patriotism of Virgina led her, before the adoption of the Constitution, to cede the Northwest Territory to the United States. The Missouri Compromise surrendered to the North all the newly acquired region not included in the state of Missouri, and north of the parallel of thirty-six degrees and a half. The northern part of Texas was in like manner given up by the compromise of 1850; and the North, having obtained, by those successive cessions, a majority in both houses of Congress, took to itself all the territory acquired from Mexico. Thus, by the action of the general government, the means were provided permanently to destroy the original equilibrium between the section
from their Anglo-Saxon ancestry, and which were set forth in the Declaration of Independence, they made common cause with their neighbors, and may, at least, claim to have done their full share in the war that ensued. By the exclusion of the South, in 1820, from all that part of the Louisiana purchase lying north of the parallel of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, and not included in the state of Missouri; by the extension of that line of exclusion to embrace the territory acquired from Texas; and by the appropriation of all the territory obtained from Mexico under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, both north and south of that line, it may be stated with approximate accuracy that the North had monopolized to herself more than three-fourths of all that had been added to the domain of the United States since the Declaration of Independence. This inequality, which began, as has been shown, in the more generous than wise confidence of the South, was employed to obtain for the North th
uincy, etc. on the acquisition of Louisiana the Hartford convention the Massachusetts Legislature on the annexation of Texas, etc. The convention of South Carolina had already (on December 20, 1860) unanimously adopted an ordinance revoking he merely, and have received justification instead of censure. Again in 1844-45 the measures taken for the annexation of Texas evoked remonstrances, accompanied by threats of a dissolution of the Union from the Northeastern states. The legislaturee other States are, to submit to undelegated powers in no body of men on earth; and that the project of the annexation of Texas unless arrested on the threshold, may tend to drive these States into a dissolution of the Union. Early in the next yewould have no binding force whatever on the people of Massachusetts— language which must have meant that the admission of Texas would be a justifiable ground for secession, unless it was intended to announce the purpose of nullification. It is evid
er period, abolitionist lecturers and teachers were mobbed, assaulted, and threatened with tar and feathers in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and other states. One of them (Lovejoy) was actually killed by a mob in Illinois as late as 1837. These facts prove incontestably that the sectional hostility which exhibited itself in 1820, on the application of Missouri for admission into the Union, which again broke out on the proposition for the annexation of Texas in 1844, and which reappeared after the Mexican war, never again to be suppressed until its fell results had been fully accomplished, was not the consequence of any difference on the abstract question of slavery. It was the offspring of sectional rivalry and political ambition. It would have manifested itself just as certainly if slavery had existed in all the states, or if there had not been a negro in America. No such pretension was made in 1803 or 1811, when the Louisiana purchase, an
es from other quarters. The declaration of these rights by the New England states and their representatives, on the acquisition of Louisiana in 1803, on the admission of the state of that name in 1811-12, and on the question of the annexation of Texas in 1843-45, have been referred to in another place. Among the resolutions of the Massachusetts legislature, in relation to the proposed annexation of Texas, adopted in February, 1845, were the following: 2. Resolved, That there has hithertoTexas, adopted in February, 1845, were the following: 2. Resolved, That there has hitherto been no precedent of the admission of a foreign state or foreign territory into the Union by legislation, granted in the Constitution of the United States to Congress, do not embrace a case of the admission of a foreign state or foreign territory, by legislation, into the Union, such an act of admission would have no binding force whatever on the people of Massachusetts. 3. Resolved, That the power, never having been granted by the people of Massachusetts, to admit into the Union States and
ifferent. Certain resolutions, said to have been adopted in a meeting of Senators held on the evening of January 5th, Subjoined are the resolutions referred to, adopted by the Senators from Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Arkansas. Toombs of Georgia and Sebastian of Arkansas are said to have been absent from the meeting: Resolved, That, in our opinion, each of the States should, as soon as may be, secede from the Union. Resolved, That provision shoulere, but acted for themselves, with an independence and unanimity unprecedented in any movement of such magnitude. Before the meeting of the caucus of January 5, 1861, South Carolina had seceded, and Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas had taken the initial step of secession, by calling conventions for its accomplishment. Before the election of Lincoln, all the Southern States, excepting one or two, had pledged themselves to separate from the Union upon the triumph of a sectio
Chapter 6: The Confederate cabinet task of selection an agreeable one due to unanimity of people Toombs of Georgia Mallory of Florida Benjamin of Louisiana Reagan of Texas Memminger of South Carolina Walker of Alabama. After being inaugurated, I proceeded to the formation of my cabinet, that is, the heads of the executive departments authorized by the laws of the provisional congress. The unanimity existing among our people made this a much easier and more agreeable tasd my acquaintance with him in the Senate had impressed me with the The first Confederate cabinet lucidity of his intellect, his systematic habits, and capacity for labor. He was therefore invited to the post of Attorney General. Reagan of Texas, I had known for a sturdy, honest Representative in the United States Congress, and his acquaintance with the territory included in the Confederate States was both extensive and accurate. These, together with his industry and ability to labor, i
states for ratification. The border states in general promptly acceded to this proposition of Virginia, and others followed, so that in the Peace Congress, or conference, which assembled, according to appointment, on the 4th, and adjourned on the 27th of February, twenty-one states were eventually represented, of which fourteen were Northern, or non-slaveholding, and seven slaveholding states. The six states which had already seceded were of course not of the number represented; nor were Texas and Arkansas, the secession of which, although not consummated, was obviously inevitable. Three of the Northwestern states—Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota—and the two Pacific states—Oregon and California —also held afoof from the conference. In the case of these last two, distance and lack of time perhaps hindered action. With regard to the other three, their reasons for declining to participate in the movement were not officially assigned, and are therefore only subjects for conjectu
iber of the guns, and the amount of damage done to inanimate material on both sides, especially to Fort Sumter, nobody was injured on either side by the bombardment. The only casualty attendant upon the affair was the death of one man and the wounding of several others by the explosion of a gun in the firing of a salute to their flag by the garrison on evacuating the fort the day after the surrender. A striking incident marked the close of the bombardment. Ex-Senator Louis T. Wigfall of Texas—a man as generous as he was recklessly Brave—when he saw the fort on fire, supposing the garrison to be hopelessly struggling for the honor of its flag, voluntarily and without authority, went under fire in an open boat to the fort, and climbing through one of its embrasures asked for Major Anderson, and insisted that he should surrender a fort which it was palpably impossible that he could hold. Major Anderson agreed to surrender on the same terms and conditions that had been offered him b
1 2