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 75 total hits in 25 results.

1 2 3
Delaware (Delaware, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.12
ment. . . . The second party was not for the abolition of the State governments nor for the introduction of a monarchical government under any form; but they wished to establish such a system as could give their own States undue power and influence in the government over the other States. A third party was what I considered truly federal and republican. This party was nearly equal in number with the other two, and was composed of the delegates from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and in part from Maryland; also of some individuals from other representations. This party were for proceeding upon terms of federal equality: they were for taking our present federal system as the basis of their proceedings, and, as far as experience had shown that other powers were necessary to the Federal Government, to give those powers. They considered this the object for which they were sent by their States, and what their States expected from them. In his account of the second
Rhode Island (Rhode Island, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.12
ir recommendations should take the course prescribed by this article—first, a report to the Congress, and then, if approved by that body, a submission to the various legislatures for final action. There was no reason to apprehend the nonconcurrence of Congress, in which a mere majority would determine the question; but the consent of the legislatures of every State was requisite in order to final ratification, and there was serious reason to fear that this consent could not be obtained. Rhode Island, as we have seen, had declined to send any representatives to the convention; of the three delegates from New York, two had withdrawn; other indications of dissatisfaction had appeared. In case of the failure of a single legislature to ratify, the labors of the convention would go for naught, under a strict adherence to the letter of the article above cited. The danger of a total frustration of their efforts was imminent. In this emergency the convention took the responsibility of tr
Maryland (Maryland, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.12
s constitutional powers. The necessity for such provision was undisputed. Beyond the common ground of a recognition of this necessity, there was a wide diversity of opinion among the members of the Convention. Luther Martin, a delegate from Maryland, in an account of its proceedings afterward given to the legislature of that state, classifies these differences as constituting three parties in the convention, which he describes as follows: One party, whose object and wish it was to abolihe other States. A third party was what I considered truly federal and republican. This party was nearly equal in number with the other two, and was composed of the delegates from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and in part from Maryland; also of some individuals from other representations. This party were for proceeding upon terms of federal equality: they were for taking our present federal system as the basis of their proceedings, and, as far as experience had shown that oth
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 2.12
ational Government in the resolution above quoted, and to insert the words Government of the United States, which he said was the proper title. He wished also the plan to go forth as an amendment ofecessions. Gerry, a distinguished member from Massachusetts—afterward Vice-President of the United States—said, If nine out of thirteen (States) can dissolve the compact, six out of nine will be justinguished writers of later date, that the Constitution was established by the people of the United States in the aggregate. If such had been the case, the will of a majority, duly ascertained and eate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union; that the terms Union, United States, Federal Constitution, and Constitution of the Federal Government, were applied to the old cof our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America, the twelfth. In witness whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names. [Followed
North Carolina (North Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.12
they were sent by their States, and what their States expected from them. In his account of the second party above described Martin refers to those representatives of the larger states who wished to establish a numerical basis of representation in the Congress, instead of the equal representation of the states (whether large or small) which existed under the Articles of Confederation. There was naturally much dissatisfaction on the part of the greater states—Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Massachusetts—whose population at that period exceeded that of all the others combined, but which, in the Congress, constituted less than one third of the voting strength. On the other hand, the smaller states were tenacious of their equality in the Union. Of the very smallest, one, as we have seen, had sent no representatives to the convention, and the other had instructed her delegates, unconditionally, to insist upon the maintenance of absolute equality in the Congress. This d
New Jersey (New Jersey, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.12
that sentiment. . . . The second party was not for the abolition of the State governments nor for the introduction of a monarchical government under any form; but they wished to establish such a system as could give their own States undue power and influence in the government over the other States. A third party was what I considered truly federal and republican. This party was nearly equal in number with the other two, and was composed of the delegates from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and in part from Maryland; also of some individuals from other representations. This party were for proceeding upon terms of federal equality: they were for taking our present federal system as the basis of their proceedings, and, as far as experience had shown that other powers were necessary to the Federal Government, to give those powers. They considered this the object for which they were sent by their States, and what their States expected from them. In his account of
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.12
tead of the equal representation of the states (whether large or small) which existed under the Articles of Confederation. There was naturally much dissatisfaction on the part of the greater states—Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Massachusetts—whose population at that period exceeded that of all the others combined, but which, in the Congress, constituted less than one third of the voting strength. On the other hand, the smaller states were tenacious of their equality in the Unioninviolably observed by every State. Opposition was made to the provision on this very ground—that it was virtually a dissolution of the Union, and that it would furnish a precedent for future secessions. Gerry, a distinguished member from Massachusetts—afterward Vice-President of the United States—said, If nine out of thirteen (States) can dissolve the compact, six out of nine will be just as able to dissolve the future one hereafter. Madison, who was one of the leading members of the
Madison (Wisconsin, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.12
unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the Federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the multiplied and important infractions with which they may be confronted? The time has been when it was incumbent on us all to veil the ideas which this paragraph exhibits. The scene is now changed, and with it the part which the same motives dictate. Madison's idea of the propriety of veiling any statement of the right of secession until the occasion arises for its exercise, whether right or wrong in itself, is eminently suggestive as explanatory of the caution exhibited by other statesmen of that period, as well as himself, with regard to that delicate truth. The only possible alternative to the view here taken of the seventh article of the Constitution, as a provision for the secession of any nine states, which might think proper to avail
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.12
bject for which they were sent by their States, and what their States expected from them. In his account of the second party above described Martin refers to those representatives of the larger states who wished to establish a numerical basis of representation in the Congress, instead of the equal representation of the states (whether large or small) which existed under the Articles of Confederation. There was naturally much dissatisfaction on the part of the greater states—Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Massachusetts—whose population at that period exceeded that of all the others combined, but which, in the Congress, constituted less than one third of the voting strength. On the other hand, the smaller states were tenacious of their equality in the Union. Of the very smallest, one, as we have seen, had sent no representatives to the convention, and the other had instructed her delegates, unconditionally, to insist upon the maintenance of absolute equality in the Co
Connecticut (Connecticut, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.12
wn States undue power and influence in the government over the other States. A third party was what I considered truly federal and republican. This party was nearly equal in number with the other two, and was composed of the delegates from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and in part from Maryland; also of some individuals from other representations. This party were for proceeding upon terms of federal equality: they were for taking our present federal system as the basis of th, and judiciary. This was followed by other resolutions—twenty-three in all, as adopted and reported by the committee—in which the word national occurred twenty-six times. The day after the report of the committee was made, Ellsworth of Connecticut moved to strike out the words national Government in the resolution above quoted, and to insert the words Government of the United States, which he said was the proper title. He wished also the plan to go forth as an amendment of the Articles
1 2 3