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
Fitzhugh Lee 465 11 Browse Search
James Longstreet 457 5 Browse Search
Gettysburg (Pennsylvania, United States) 301 1 Browse Search
Gederal Meade 240 0 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 182 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 151 5 Browse Search
Ewell 141 29 Browse Search
Pickett 141 11 Browse Search
Grant 130 12 Browse Search
Fitz Lee 120 4 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 5. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 104 total hits in 31 results.

1 2 3 4
Edgefield (Tennessee, United States) (search for this): chapter 3.26
Statement.-It appears of record that in the Autumn of 1861, Plumley, defendant's intestate, petitioned the Branch Bank of Tennessee at Sparta to discount his note for $500,--alleging that he had contracted with the Nitre and Mining Bureau at Nashville to make and furnish saltpetre to The Confederate States of America. At that time, the Bank was discounting but little:--but, because of the purpose for which the loan was designed, it was allowed. The money was faithfully appropriated to the 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 Ba
Fredericksburg, Va. (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 3.26
that the Confederacy was de jure as well as de facto-opinion of Judge Turney. The following decision is worthy of a place in our records not only because of the importance of the principles involved, but also on account of the ability with which the learned jurist maintains his positions. It will not detract from the value of the decision, in the eyes of any right-thinking man, if we add that Judge Turney was a skillful and gallant Confederate soldier, and was desperately wounded at Fredericksburg: The bank of Tennessee v. Wm. B. Cummings, Adm'r. Statement.-It appears of record that in the Autumn of 1861, Plumley, defendant's intestate, petitioned the Branch Bank of Tennessee at Sparta to discount his note for $500,--alleging that he had contracted with the Nitre and Mining Bureau at Nashville to make and furnish saltpetre to The Confederate States of America. At that time, the Bank was discounting but little:--but, because of the purpose for which the loan was designed, it
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 3.26
make and furnish saltpetre to The Confederate States of America. At that time, the Bank was discoe States in the war then flagrant with the United States. 1. Governmental Law-The Confederate StConfederate States of America-A Government de jure.-The Government of The Confederate States of America was organ8 Wallace, 12-13, the Supreme Court of the United States say: We have already seen that the people t was unable to give to those within the Confederate States Government who adhered to the cause of tlled to yield obedience to the laws of the United States;--the one was as much without relief as thduty. How could the people within the Confederate States provide for their safety and preservatiorvance was remedied by themselves, and the United States were powerless to prevent or hinder,--leavresults that the Government of The Confederate States of America and its constituent members had thipal rights of sovereignty remained in the United States during the late civil war, and could be re[6 more...]
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) (search for this): chapter 3.26
Decision of the Supreme Court of Tennessee that the Confederacy was de jure as well as de facto-opinion of Judge Turney. The following decision is worthy of a place in our records not only because of the importance of the principles involved, atement.-It appears of record that in the Autumn of 1861, Plumley, defendant's intestate, petitioned the Branch Bank of Tennessee at Sparta to discount his note for $500,--alleging that he had contracted with the Nitre and Mining Bureau at Nashville by the acts of the governing power, at the making of the note in suit? It was, the seceding States, including the State of Tennessee, had by the solemn acts of their peoples in convention assembled, or by overwhelming majorities at the ballot box, s, 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.
Jackson (Tennessee, United States) (search for this): chapter 3.26
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.
Rowan (search for this): chapter 3.26
: Smith v. Brazleton, 1 Heis., 46. 4. State.-Right.-A State having a right may employ the means necessary for its perfection and enjoyment, and to this end may engage its citizens, or they may voluntarily contribute to it. 5. Case at Bar.-In the present case the contract was freely and voluntarily entered into, and was, therefore, legal and binding. From Warren. Appeal in error from the judgment of the Circuit Court, October term, 1869. William P. Hickerson, J. W. E. B. Jones, Rowan & Wommack, for appellant; John H. Savage, for appellee. Turney, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The circuit judge charged the jury: If the officers of the Bank had notice that the money was to be used by the defendant's intestate in. aid of the Southern Confederacy, as for the manufacture of one of the ingredients of gunpowder, and with a view and for the purpose of so aiding the Confederacy they advanced the money, then your verdict should be for the defendant. This is error
Brazleton (search for this): chapter 3.26
powder.-The use of gunpowder is a belligerent right of primal importance:--the right to use carries with it the right to purchase or manufacture, and in the manufacture the right to the means requisite for its achievement. Case cited: Smith v. Brazleton, 1 Heis., 46. 4. State.-Right.-A State having a right may employ the means necessary for its perfection and enjoyment, and to this end may engage its citizens, or they may voluntarily contribute to it. 5. Case at Bar.-In the present case eady quoted, obedience to its authority in civil and local matters, not only a necessity, but a duty. It has been repeatedly held that the Government of the Confederate States was a government de facto, with belligerent rights. In Smith v. Brazleton, 1 Heis., 46, Judge Nelson, a statesman and jurist, in whose opinion we see the hand of a master, said, That although municipal rights of sovereignty remained in the United States during the late civil war, and could be reasserted whenever and
Kirby Smith (search for this): chapter 3.26
e power, and exercised it, of making laws for its own government and that of its citizens. 2. Same.-Allegiance-juris et de jure.-Obedience to its authority in civil and local matters was not only a necessity, but a duty. Cited: Thorrington v. Smith, 8 Wallace, 12-13; Vattel, 97. 3. International Law.-Belligerent Rights.-Gunpowder.-The use of gunpowder is a belligerent right of primal importance:--the right to use carries with it the right to purchase or manufacture, and in the manufacturfederacy, as for the manufacture of one of the ingredients of gunpowder, and with a view and for the purpose of so aiding the Confederacy they advanced the money, then your verdict should be for the defendant. This is error. In Thorrington v. Smith, 8 Wallace, 12-13, the Supreme Court of the United States say: We have already seen that the people of the insurgent States, under the Confederate Government, were in legal contemplation substantially in the same condition as inhabitants of distr
Turney (search for this): chapter 3.26
Decision of the Supreme Court of Tennessee that the Confederacy was de jure as well as de facto-opinion of Judge Turney. The following decision is worthy of a place in our records not only because of the importance of the principles involved, but also on account of the ability with which the learned jurist maintains his positions. It will not detract from the value of the decision, in the eyes of any right-thinking man, if we add that Judge Turney was a skillful and gallant Confederate soldier, and was desperately wounded at Fredericksburg: The bank of Tennessee v. Wm. B. Cummings, Adm'r. Statement.-It appears of record that in the Autumn of 1the judgment of the Circuit Court, October term, 1869. William P. Hickerson, J. W. E. B. Jones, Rowan & Wommack, for appellant; John H. Savage, for appellee. Turney, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The circuit judge charged the jury: If the officers of the Bank had notice that the money was to be used by the defend
W. E. B. Jones (search for this): chapter 3.26
Case cited: Smith v. Brazleton, 1 Heis., 46. 4. State.-Right.-A State having a right may employ the means necessary for its perfection and enjoyment, and to this end may engage its citizens, or they may voluntarily contribute to it. 5. Case at Bar.-In the present case the contract was freely and voluntarily entered into, and was, therefore, legal and binding. From Warren. Appeal in error from the judgment of the Circuit Court, October term, 1869. William P. Hickerson, J. W. E. B. Jones, Rowan & Wommack, for appellant; John H. Savage, for appellee. Turney, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The circuit judge charged the jury: If the officers of the Bank had notice that the money was to be used by the defendant's intestate in. aid of the Southern Confederacy, as for the manufacture of one of the ingredients of gunpowder, and with a view and for the purpose of so aiding the Confederacy they advanced the money, then your verdict should be for the defendant. Th
1 2 3 4