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) 296 2 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government 94 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. 61 1 Browse Search
Hon. J. L. M. Curry , LL.D., William Robertson Garrett , A. M. , Ph.D., Confederate Military History, a library of Confederate States Military History: Volume 1.1, Legal Justification of the South in secession, The South as a factor in the territorial expansion of the United States (ed. Clement Anselm Evans) 58 0 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 36. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 50 0 Browse Search
C. Edwards Lester, Life and public services of Charles Sumner: Born Jan. 6, 1811. Died March 11, 1874. 44 0 Browse Search
Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 1. (ed. Frank Moore) 34 0 Browse Search
Raphael Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat During the War Between the States 30 0 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 26. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 26 0 Browse Search
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 27. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) 18 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 James Madison or search for James Madison in all documents.

Your search returned 47 results in 21 document sections:

1 2 3
the Senate I announced that, if any respectable man would call me a disunionist, I would answer him in monosyllables. . . . But I have often asserted the right, for which the battles of the revolution were fought—the right of a people to change their government whenever it was found to be oppressive, and subversive of the objects for which governments are instituted-and have contended for the independence and sovereignty of the States, a part of the creed of which Jefferson was the apostle, Madison the expounder, and Jackson the consistent defender. I have written freely, and more than I designed. Accept my thanks for your friendly advocacy. Present me in terms of kind remembrance to your family, and believe me, very sincerely yours, Jefferson Davis. Note.—No party in Mississippi ever advocated disunion. They differed as to the mode of securing their rights in the Union, and on the power of a State to secede-neither advocating the exercise of the power. J. D. In t
been made by quasi-military organizations in various parts of the North, which looked unmistakably to purposes widely different from those enunciated in the preamble to the Constitution, and to the employment of means not authorized by the powers which the states had delegated to the federal government. Well-informed men still remembered that, in the convention which framed the Constitution, a proposition was made to authorize the employment of force against a delinquent state, on which Madison remarked that the use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous 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 t
. It therefore must maintain, not destroy, barriers. I do not know that I fully appreciate the purpose of my friend from Missouri; whether, when he spoke of establishing military posts along the borders of the States, and arming the Federal Government with adequate physical power to enforce constitutional rights (I suppose he meant obligations), he meant to confer upon this Federal Government a power which it does not now possess to coerce a State. If he did, then, in the language of Mr. Madison, he is providing, not for a union of States, but for the destruction of States; he is providing, under the name of Union, to carry on a war against States; and I care not whether it be against Massachusetts or Missouri, it is equally objectionable to me; and I will resist it alike in the one case and in the other, as subversive of the great principle on which our Government rests; as a heresy to be confronted at its first presentation, and put down there, lest it grow into proportions whi
ed difficulty with regard to ratification, and its solution provision for secession from the Union views of Gerry and Madison false Interpretations close of the convention. When the convention met in Philadelphia in May, 1787, it soon becamepowers and functions of government to a common agent, an authoity above that of the state legislatures was necessary. Mr. Madison, in the Federalist, No. Xliii. says: It has been heretofore noted among the defects of the Confederation, that in hirteen (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 convention, advocating afterward in the Federalist the adoption of the new Coajority of eight out of thirteen states had ratified it, the refusal of the ninth would have rendered it null and void. Madison, who was one of the most distinguished of its authors and signers, writing after it was completed and signed, but before
been referred to for the exposition which they afford of the interpretation of the Constitution by its authors and their contemporaries. Among the members were Madison, Mason, and Randolph, who had also been members of the convention at Philadelphia. Madison was one of the most earnest advocates of the new Constitution, while MMadison was one of the most earnest advocates of the new Constitution, while Mason was as warmly opposed to its adoption; so also was Patrick Henry, the celebrated orator. It was assailed with great vehemence at every vulnerable or doubtful point, and was finally ratified June 26, 1788, by a vote of 89 to 79—a majority of only ten. This ratification was expressed in the same terms employed by other states it was at first proposed to make a condition precedent to the validity of the ratification. This idea was abandoned after a correspondence between Hamilton and Madison, and, instead of conditional ratification, New York provided for the resumption of her grants; the amendments were put forth with a circular letter to the other s
the several states, either through conventions of their people or through the state legislatures. The Constitution which susperseded those articles was framed, as we have seen, by delegates chosen and empowered by the several states, and was ratified by conventions of the people of the same states—all acting in entire independence of one another. This ratification alone gave it force and validity. Without the approval and ratification of the people of the states, it would have been, as Madison expressed it, of no more consequence than the paper on which it was written. It was never submitted to the people of the United States in the aggregate, or as a people. Indeed, no such political community as the people of the United States in the aggregate exists at this day or ever did exist. Senators in Congress confessedly represent the states as equal units. The House of Representatives is not a body of representatives of the people of the United States, as often erroneously asserted
feguard afterward embodied in the tenth amendment—to be referred to hereafter. Henry's objection was thus answered by Madison: Who are parties to it [the Constitution]? The people—but not the people as composing one great body; but the peopleen it was revived, and has since been employed, to sustain that theory of a great consolidated national government which Madison so distinctly repudiated. But we have access to sources of information, not then available, which make the intent and meaning of the Constitution still plainer. When Henry made his objection, and Madison answered it, the journal of the Philadelphia Convention had not been published. That body had sat with closed doors, and among its rules had been the followingal of the Federal Convention, May 29, 1787, 1 Elliott's Debates. We can understand, by reference to these rules, how Madison should have felt precluded from making allusion to anything that had occurred during the proceedings of the convention.
its members, not as fractional parts of one great unit, but as component units of an association. So clear was this to contemporaries that it needed only to be pointed out to satisfy their scruples. We have seen how effectual was the answer of Madison to the objections raised by Patrick Henry. Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania, one of the ablest political writers of his generation, in answering a similar objection, said: If the Federal Convention had meant to exclude the idea of union — that is, ofts decrees upon the states. They forget, in the first place, that this convention was composed of delegates, not of any one people, but of distinct states; in the second place, that their action had no force or validity whatever—in the words of Madison, that it was of no more consequence than the paper on which it was written—until approved and ratified by a sufficient number of states. The meaning of the preamble, We, the people of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constit<
ost pronounced advocates of a strong central government in the convention, said: He came here to form a compact for the good of Americans. He was ready to do so with all the States. He hoped and believed they all would enter into such a compact. If they would not, he would be ready to join with any States that would. But, as the compact was to be voluntary, it is in vain for the Eastern States to insist on what the Southern States will never agree to. Madison Papers, pp. 1081, 1082. Madison, while inclining to a strong government, said: In the case of a union of people under one Constitution, the nature of the pact has always been understood, etc. Ibid., p. 1184. Hamilton, in the Federalist, repeatedly speaks of the new government as a confederate republic and a confederacy, and calls the Constitution a compact. See especially Nos. IX and LXXXV. General Washington—who was not only the first President under the new Constitution, but who had presided over the convent
hose days, made this declaration: The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the Province of Massachusetts Bay do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other to form themselves into a free, sovereign, and independent body politic, or State, by the name of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. New Hampshire, in her constitution, as revised in 1792, had identically the same declaration, except as regards the name of the state and the word state instead of commonwealth. Madison, one of the most distinguished of the men of that day and of the advocates of the Constitution, in a speech already once referred to, in the Virginia convention of 1788, explained that We, the people, who were to establish the Constitution, were the people of thirteen sovereignties. Elliott's Debates, Vol. III, p. 114, edition of 1836. In the Federalist he repeatedly employs the term—as, for example, when he says: Do they [the fundamental principles of the Confederation] require tha
1 2 3