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) 1,404 0 Browse Search
George Meade, The Life and Letters of George Gordon Meade, Major-General United States Army (ed. George Gordon Meade) 200 0 Browse Search
C. Edwards Lester, Life and public services of Charles Sumner: Born Jan. 6, 1811. Died March 11, 1874. 188 0 Browse Search
Adam Badeau, Grant in peace: from Appomattox to Mount McGregor, a personal memoir 184 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. 174 0 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) 166 0 Browse Search
Colonel William Preston Johnston, The Life of General Albert Sidney Johnston : His Service in the Armies of the United States, the Republic of Texas, and the Confederate States. 164 0 Browse Search
Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant 132 0 Browse Search
John M. Schofield, Forty-six years in the Army 100 0 Browse Search
James Buchanan, Buchanan's administration on the eve of the rebellion 100 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 Mexico (Mexico, Mexico) or search for Mexico (Mexico, Mexico) in all documents.

Your search returned 33 results in 15 document sections:

1 2
gitive slave law-death of Calhoun Anecdote of Clay. The first session of the Thirty-first Congress (1849-50) was a memorable one. The recent acquisition from Mexico of New Mexico and California required legislation by Congress. In the Senate the bills reported by the Committee on Territories were referred to a select committhe Union, and so destructive of the harmony and mutual benefit which the Constitution was intended to secure. The refusal to divide the territory acquired from Mexico by an extension of the line of the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific was a consequence of the purpose to admit California as a state of the Union before it had acquired the requisite population, and while it was mainly under the control of a military organization sent from New York during the war with Mexico and disbanded in California upon the restoration of peace. The inconsistency of the argument against the extension of the line was exhibited in the division of the territory of Texas
r points in a form so little acceptable to the unfriendly inquirers, that the publication of the letter had to be drawn out of them. At the risk of being wearisome, but encouraged by your marked friendship, I will give you a statement in the case. The meeting of October, 1849, was a convention of delegates equally representing the Whig and Democratic parties in Mississippi. The resolutions were decisive as to equality of right in the South with the North to the Territories acquired from Mexico, and proposed a convention of the Southern States. I was not a member, but on invitation addressed the Convention. The succeeding Legislature instructed me, as a Senator, to assert this equality, and, under the existing circumstances, to resist by all constitutional means the admission of California as a State. At a called session of the Legislature in 1850, a self-constituted committee called on me, by letter, for my views. They were men who had enacted or approved the resolutions of th
ent, in 1820, of the politico-sectional line of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes. That compact had been virtually abrogated, in 1850, by the refusal of the representatives of the North to apply it to the territory then recently acquired from Mexico. In May, 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska bill was passed; its purpose was declared in the bill itself to be to carry into practical operation the propositions and principles established by the compromise measures of 1850. The Missouri Compromise, theees and a half. The northern part of Texas was in like manner given up by the compromise of 1850; and the North, having obtained, by those successive cessions, a majority in both houses of Congress, took to itself all the territory acquired from Mexico. Thus, by the action of the general government, the means were provided permanently to destroy the original equilibrium between the sections. Nor was this the only injury to which the South was subjected. Under the power of Congress to levy
claration 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 appropriation of all the territory obtained from Mexico under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, both north and south of that line, it may be stated with approximate accuracy that the North had monopolized to herself more than three-fourths of all that had been added to the domain of the United States since the Declaration of Independence. This inequality, which began, as has been shown, in the more generous than wise confidence of the South, was employed to obtain for the North the lion's share of what was afterward added at the cost of the public
rd which is applicable to all. The Boston memorial to Congress, referred to in a foregoing chapter, as prepared by a committee with Webster at its head, says that the new states are universally considered as admitted into the Union upon the same footing as the original States, and as possessing, in respect to the Union, the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as the other States. But, with regard to states formed of territory acquired by purchase from France, Spain, and Mexico, it is claimed that, as they were bought by the United States, they belong to the same, and have no right to withdraw at will from an association the property which had been purchased by the other parties. Happy would it have been if the equal rights of the people of all the states to the enjoyment of territory acquired by the common treasure could have been recognized at the proper time! There would then have been no secession and no war. As for the sordid claim of ownership of stat
den ever to be foes. The nomination of the members of the commission was made on February 25—within a week after my inauguration—and confirmed by Congress on the same day. The commissioners appointed were A. B. Roman of Louisiana, Martin J. Crawford of Georgia, and John Forsyth of Alabama. Roman was an honored citizen and had been governor of his native state; Crawford had served with distinction in Congress for several years; Forsyth was an influential journalist, and had been minister to Mexico under appointment of Pierce near the close of his term, and continued so under that of Buchanan. These gentlemen, moreover, represented the three great parties which had ineffectually opposed the sectionalism of the so-called Republicans. Ex-Governor Roman had been a Whig in former years, and one of the Constitutional Union, or Bell-and-Everett party in the canvass of 1860; Crawford, as a state-rights Democrat, had supported Breckinridge; Forsyth had been a zealous advocate of the claims o
New York, a graduate of the United States Military Academy in 1815, and who served continuously in the army until March 7, 1861, with such distinction as secured to him the appointment of adjutant general of the United States army. Second, Albert Sidney Johnston, a native of Kentucky, a graduate of the United States Military Academy in 1826, served conspicuously in the army until 1834, then served in the army of the republic of Texas, and then in the United States Volunteers in the war with Mexico. Subsequently he reentered the United States army, and for meritorious conduct attained the rank of brevet brigadier general. After the secession of Texas, his adopted state, he resigned his commission in the United States army, May 3, 1861, and traveled by land from California to Richmond to offer his services to the Confederacy. Third, Robert E. Lee, a native of Virginia, a graduate of the United States Military Academy in 1829, when he was appointed in the engineer corps of the United
lieve that competent guides led the enemy, by roads unknown to our army, to the flank and rear of its position, and thus caused the sacrifice of those who had patriotically come to repel the invasion of the very people who furnished the guides to the enemy. It was treachery confounding the counsels of the brave. Thus occurred the disaster of Rich Mountain and Laurel Hill. General Robert Garnett was a native of Virginia and a graduate of the United States Military Academy. He served in Mexico, on the staff of General Z. Taylor, and was conspicuous for gallantry and good conduct, especially in the battles of Monterey and Buena Vista. Recognizing his allegiance as due to the state of Virginia, from which he was appointed a cadet, and thence won his various promotions in the army, he resigned his commission when the state withdrew from the Union, and earnestly and usefully served as aide-de-camp to General R. E. Lee, the commander in chief of the army of Virginia, until she acceded
herein inserted from a narrative in the Operations on the Line of Bull Run in June and July, 1861, including the First Battle of Manassas. The name of the author, J. A. Early, will, to all who know him, be a sufficient guarantee for the accuracy of the statements, and for the justice of the conclusions announced. To those who do not know him, it may be proper to state that he was educated as a soldier; after leaving the army he became a lawyer, but when his country was involved in war with Mexico, he volunteered and served in a regiment of his native state, Virginia. After that war terminated, he returned to the practice of his profession, which he was actively pursuing when the controversy between the sections caused the call of a convention to decide whether Virginia should secede from the Union. He was sent by the people of the county in which he resided, to represent them in that convention. There he opposed to the last the adoption of the ordinance for secession; when it was
nd some short artillery swords. A few hundred holster pistols were scattered about. There were no revolvers. There was before the war little powder or ammunition of any kind stored in the Southern states, and this was a relic of the war with Mexico. It is doubtful if there were a million of rounds of small-arms cartridges. The chief store of powder was that captured at Norfolk; there was, besides, a small quantity at each of the Southern arsenals, in all sixty thousand pounds, chiefly oldvana, Another organization was also necessary, that the vessels coming in through the blockade might have their return cargoes promptly on their arrival. These resources were also supplemented by contracts for supplies brought through Texas from Mexico. The arsenal in Richmond soon grew into very large dimensions, and produced all the ordnance stores that the army required, except cannon and small arms, in quantities sufficient to supply the forces in the field. The arsenal at Augusta was v
1 2