hide Matching Documents

Browsing named entities in Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). You can also browse the collection for Jackson (Tennessee, United States) or search for Jackson (Tennessee, United States) in all documents.

Your search returned 2 results in 2 document sections:

Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Battle of Murfreesboro. (search)
west bank of the river. About twilight Brigadier-General Aiiderson reported to me with his brigade, and remained in position with me until the army retired. I took up line of battle for the night a little in rear of the field over which we advanced to the assault, and Captain Robertson at my request disposed the artillery in the positions indicated for it. Many of the reports do not discriminate between the losses of Wednesday and Friday. The total loss in my division, exclusive of Jackson's command, is 2,140, of which, I think, 1,700 occurred on Friday. The loss of the enemy on this day was, I think, greater than our own, since he suffered immense slaughter between the ridge and the river. I cannot forbear to express my admiration for the courage and constancy of the troops, exhibited even after it became apparent that the main object could not be accomplished. Beyond the general good conduct, a number of enlisted men displayed at different periods of the action the mos
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones), Decision of the Supreme Court of Tennessee that the Confederacy was de jure as well as de facto-opinion of Judge Turney. (search)
nstituents of the aggregate composing the State. A State having a right may employ all the means necessary to the enjoyment of that right, and it is a gross solecism to say that the State may lawfully have a thing, but may not lawfully engage its citizens to createthat thing, or that its citizens may not voluntarily do so. There is no conflict of opinion between this holding and the case of Puryear, adm'r, v. McGavock et als., manuscript opinion by Judge Deaderick, as the transaction in that case was in April, 1861, before action was taken by the State in the matter of separation. Reverse the judgment. Note.-The opinion above was delivered at Nashville, December term, 1872, and introduced here as conclusive of the numerous cases, still pending in the courts of the State, involving the principles it determines. It was recently reaffirmed, without a written opinion, in the case of The Union Bank of Tennessee v. Alexander Pattison, at Jackson, September term, 1876.-J. C. M.