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
United States (United States) 1,668 0 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 440 0 Browse Search
Kentucky (Kentucky, United States) 256 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 239 3 Browse Search
Missouri (Missouri, United States) 172 0 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 168 0 Browse Search
J. E. Johnston 166 0 Browse Search
P. G. T. Beauregard 158 6 Browse Search
Robert Anderson 136 6 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 124 2 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. Search the whole document.

Found 138 total hits in 47 results.

1 2 3 4 5
Benjamin Fitzpatrick (search for this): chapter 1.7
nd met again in Baltimore in June. Then, having finally failed to come to an agreement, they separated and made their respective nominations apart. Douglas of Illinois was nominated by the friends of the doctrine of popular sovereignty, with Fitzpatrick of Alabama for the vice presidency. Both these gentlemen at that time were Senators from their respective states. Fitzpatrick promptly declined the nomination, and his place was filled with the name of Herschel V. Johnson, a distinguished ciFitzpatrick promptly declined the nomination, and his place was filled with the name of Herschel V. Johnson, a distinguished citizen of Georgia. The convention representing the conservative, or state-rights, wing of the Democratic party (the president of which was the Hon. Caleb Cushing of Massachusetts) on the first ballot unanimously made choice of John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky, then Vice-President of the United States, for the first office, and with like unanimity selected General Joseph Lane, then a Senator from Oregon, for the second. The resolutions of each of these two conventions denounced the action and
British Empire (search for this): chapter 1.7
w of the case. Notable among such was the New York Tribune, which had been the organ of the abolitionists, and which now declared that, if the cotton States wished to withdraw from the Union, they should be allowed to do so; that any attempt to compel them to remain, by force, would be contrary to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and to the fundamental ideas upon which human liberty is based; and that, if the Declaration of Independence justified the secession from the British Empire of three millions of subjects in 1776, it was not seen why it would not justify the secession of five millions of Southerners from the Union in 1861. Again, it was said by the same journal that sooner than compromise with the South and abandon the Chicago platform, they would let the Union slide. Taunting expressions were freely used—as, for example, If the Southern people wish to leave the Union we will do our best to forward their views. All this, it must be admitted, was quite co
Abraham Lincoln (search for this): chapter 1.7
n behalf of agreement declined by Douglas the election of Lincoln and Hamlin proceedings in the South evidences of calmnesnd the other from the South, but this assemblage nominated Lincoln of Illinois for the first office, and for the second, Hamlin of Maine—both Northerners. Lincoln, its nominee for the presidency, had publicly announced that the Union could not perm. 4. The so-called Republicans, presenting the names of Lincoln and Hamlin, who held, in the language of one of their leadocrats, if he were withdrawn, would join in the support of Lincoln, rather than of any one that should supplant him (Douglas)al to the harmony of the Union. Of 303 electoral votes, Lincoln received 180, but of the popular suffrage of 4,676,853 votwhich 362,--646 were cast for the so-called Republican (or Lincoln) electors, and 312,510 against them. New York was entitle of the popular vote, 19 of these would have been cast for Lincoln, and 16 against him. But under the general ticket system t
Stephen A. Douglas (search for this): chapter 1.7
nominations at Baltimore the Constitutional-Union party and its nominees an effort in behalf of agreement declined by Douglas the election of Lincoln and Hamlin proceedings in the South evidences of calmness and deliberation Buchanan's conserrence to the Constitution, the Union, and the enforcement of the laws. 2. The party of popular sovereignty, headed by Douglas and Johnson, who affirmed the right of the people of the territories, in their territorial condition, to determine theire generally acceptable than either of the three who had been presented to the country. When I made this announcement to Douglas—with whom my relations had always been such as to authorize the assurance that he could not consider it as made in an un Democrats, if he were withdrawn, would join in the support of Lincoln, rather than of any one that should supplant him (Douglas); that he was in the hands of his friends, and was sure they would not accept the proposition. It needed but little k
Saxon (search for this): chapter 1.7
proceeded, and to the disturbance of that equilibrium which existed at the close of the war of the Revolution. It may not be out of place here to refer to the fact that the grievances which led to that war were directly inflicted upon the Northern colonies. Those of the South had no material cause of complaint; actuated by sympathy for their Northern brethren, however, and a devotion to the principles of civil liberty and community independence, which they had inherited 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 appr
John C. Calhoun (search for this): chapter 1.7
o coerce a state. Like the sages and patriots who had preceded him in the high office that he filled, he believed that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it cannot live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress may possess many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force. Message of December 3, 1860. Ten years before, Calhoun, addressing the Senate with all the earnestness of his nature, and with that sincere desire to avert the danger of disunion which those who knew him best never doubted, had asked the emphatic question, How can the Union be saved? He answered his question thus: There is but one way by which it can be [saved] with any certainty; and that is by a full and final settlement, on the principles of justice, of all the questions at issue between the sections. The South asks for justice—simple
December 3rd, 1860 AD (search for this): chapter 1.7
l government had no rightful power to coerce a state. Like the sages and patriots who had preceded him in the high office that he filled, he believed that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it cannot live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress may possess many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force. Message of December 3, 1860. Ten years before, Calhoun, addressing the Senate with all the earnestness of his nature, and with that sincere desire to avert the danger of disunion which those who knew him best never doubted, had asked the emphatic question, How can the Union be saved? He answered his question thus: There is but one way by which it can be [saved] with any certainty; and that is by a full and final settlement, on the principles of justice, of all the questions at issue between the sections.
June (search for this): chapter 1.7
the nomination to assure the most fanatical foes of the Constitution that their ideas would be the rule and guide of the party. Meantime, the Democratic party had held a convention, composed as usual of delegates from all the states. They met in Charleston, South Carolina, on April 23d, but an unfortunate disagreement with regard to the declaration of principles to be set forth rendered a nomination impracticable. Both divisions of the convention adjourned, and met again in Baltimore in June. Then, having finally failed to come to an agreement, they separated and made their respective nominations apart. Douglas of Illinois was nominated by the friends of the doctrine of popular sovereignty, with Fitzpatrick of Alabama for the vice presidency. Both these gentlemen at that time were Senators from their respective states. Fitzpatrick promptly declined the nomination, and his place was filled with the name of Herschel V. Johnson, a distinguished citizen of Georgia. The convent
1776 AD (search for this): chapter 1.7
New York Tribune, which had been the organ of the abolitionists, and which now declared that, if the cotton States wished to withdraw from the Union, they should be allowed to do so; that any attempt to compel them to remain, by force, would be contrary to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and to the fundamental ideas upon which human liberty is based; and that, if the Declaration of Independence justified the secession from the British Empire of three millions of subjects in 1776, it was not seen why it would not justify the secession of five millions of Southerners from the Union in 1861. Again, it was said by the same journal that sooner than compromise with the South and abandon the Chicago platform, they would let the Union slide. Taunting expressions were freely used—as, for example, If the Southern people wish to leave the Union we will do our best to forward their views. All this, it must be admitted, was quite consistent with the oft-repeated declaration
1860 AD (search for this): chapter 1.7
A retrospect growth of sectional rivalry the generosity of Virginia unequal accessions of Territory the tariff and its effects the Republican convention of 1860, its resolutions and its nominations the Democratic convention at Charleston, its divisions and disruption the nominations at Baltimore the Constitutional-Unionion had been fearfully rapid. With very rare exceptions, there were none in 1850 who claimed the right of the federal government to apply coercion to a state. In 1860 men had grown to be familiar with threats of driving the South into submission to any act that the government, in the hands of a Northern majority, might see fit tprevious compacts by which it might have been bound. The convention expressly refused to confer the power proposed, and the clause was lost. While, therefore, in 1860, many violent men, appealing to passion and the lust of power, were inciting the multitude, and preparing Northern opinion to support a war waged against the South
1 2 3 4 5