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) 456 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. 154 0 Browse Search
Benson J. Lossing, Pictorial Field Book of the Civil War. Volume 1. 72 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) 64 0 Browse Search
Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events, Diary from December 17, 1860 - April 30, 1864 (ed. Frank Moore) 58 0 Browse Search
George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent, Vol. 2, 17th edition. 54 0 Browse Search
Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 1. (ed. Frank Moore) 44 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 II. 40 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government 38 0 Browse Search
Frederick H. Dyer, Compendium of the War of the Rebellion: Regimental Histories 36 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 Delaware (Delaware, United States) or search for Delaware (Delaware, United States) in all documents.

Your search returned 19 results in 13 document sections:

1 2
votes on the proposed restriction, which eventually failed of adoption, and on the compromise, which was finally adopted, are often confounded. The advocacy of the former measure was exclusively sectional, no Southern member voting for it in either house. On the adoption of the compromise line of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, the vote in the Senate was 34 yeas to 10 nays. The Senate consisted of forty-four members from twenty-two states, equally divided between the two sections—Delaware being classed as a Southern state. Among the yeas were all the Northern votes, except two from Indiana—being 20— and 14 Southern. The nays consisted of 2 from the North, and 8 from the South. In the House of Representatives, the vote was 134 yeas to 42 nays. Of the yeas, 95 were Northern, 39 Southern; of the nays, 5 Northern, and 37 Southern. Among the nays in the Senate were Messrs. James Barbour and James Pleasants of Virginia, Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina, John Gaillard and<
which proved to be the opening of Pandora's box. The vote in the Senate on the proposition to continue the line of the Missouri Compromise through the newly acquired territory to the Pacific was twenty-four yeas to thirty-two nays. Reckoning Delaware and Missouri as Southern states, the vote of the two sections was exactly equal. The yeas were all cast by Southern Senators; the nays were all Northern except two from Delaware, one from Missouri, and one from Kentucky. However objectionabDelaware, one from Missouri, and one from Kentucky. However objectionable it may have been in 1820 to adopt that political line as expressing a geographical definition of different sectional interests, and however it may be condemned as the assumption by Congress of a function not delegated to it, it is to be remembered that the act had received such recognition and quasi-ratification by the people of the states as to give it a value which it did not originally possess. Pacification had been the fruit borne by the tree, and it should not have been recklessly hewed
ed causes—the possession of more territory, more money, and a wider field for the employment of special labor—all served to attract immigration; with increasing population, the greed grew by what it fed on. This became distinctly manifest when the so-called Republican convention assembled in Chicago on May 16, 1860, to nominate a candidate for the presidency. It was a purely sectional body. There were a few delegates present, representing an insignificant minority in the border states, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri; but not one from any state south of the celebrated political line of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes. It had been the invariable usage with nominating conventions of all parties to select candidates for the presidency and vice presidency, one from the North and 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 pre<
mmissioners from the various states to consider the subject. Such a meeting was held at Annapolis in September, 1786; as only five states (New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) were represented, the commissioners declined to take any action further than to recommend another convention, with a wider scope forrovisions, etc.—the remainder of their instructions being in the same words as those given to the Georgia delegates. The instructions given to the deputies of Delaware were substantially in accord with the others—being almost literally identical with those of Pennsylvania—but the following proviso was added: So, always, and pros in mass, as has been most absurdly contended by some political writers, but the people of the several states, as states—just as in the Congress of that period— Delaware, with her sixty thousand inhabitants, having entire equality with Pennsylvania, which had more than four hundred thousand, or Virginia, with her seven hundred
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
The terms in which this action was expressed by the several states and the declarations with which it was accompanied by some of them are worthy of attention. Delaware was the first to act. Her convention met on December 3, 1787, and ratified the Constitution on the 7th. The readiness of this least in population and next to thpt that instrument, is a very significant fact when we remember the jealous care with which she had guarded against any infringement of her sovereign statehood. Delaware alone had given special instructions to her deputies in the convention not to consent to any sacrifice of the principle of equal representation in Congress. Theof America. In New Jersey the ratification, which took place on December 18, was unanimous. This is no less significant and instructive than the unanimity of Delaware, from the fact that the New Jersey delegation, in the convention that framed the Constitution, had taken the lead in behalf of the federal, or state rights, idea
people of the colonies as one people. Plainly, it does no such thing. The misconception is so palpable as scarcely to admit of serious answer. The Declaration of Independence opens with a general proposition. One people is equivalent to saying any people. The use of the correlatives one and another was the simple and natural way of stating this general proposition. One people applies, and was obviously intended to apply, to all cases of the same category—to that of New Hampshire, or Delaware, or South Carolina, or of any other people existing or to exist, and whether acting separately or in concert. It applies to any case, and all cases, of dissolution of political bands, as well as to the case of the British colonies. It does not, either directly or by implication, assert their unification, and has no bearing whatever upon the question. When the colonies united in sending representatives to a Congress in Philadelphia, there was no purpose—no suggestion of a purpose— to m<
n which Patrick Henry thought the fate of America might depend, and which has been so grossly perverted in later years from its true intent. The original language of the preamble, reported to the convention by a committee of five appointed to prepare the Constitution, as we find it in the proceedings of August 6, 1787, was as follows: We, the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare, and establish, the following Constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity. There can be no question here what was meant: it was the people of the States, designated by name, that were to ordain, declare, and establish the compact of union for themselves and their posterity. There is no ambiguity nor uncertainty in the language, nor was there any difference in the convention as to the
legal majority would have been binding upon the whole. A denial of the first proposition would be a denial of common justice and equal rights; a denial of the second would be to destroy all government and establish mere anarchy. Now, neither of these principles was practiced or proposed or even imagined in the case of the action of the people of the United States (if they were one political community) upon the proposed Constitution. On the contrary, seventy thousand people in the state of Delaware had precisely the same weight—one vote—in its ratification, as seven hundred thousand (and more) in Virginia, or four hundred thousand in Pennsylvania. Would not this have been an intolerable grievance and Wrong—would no protest have been uttered against it—if these had been fractional parts of one community of people? Again, while the will of the consenting majority within any state was binding on the opposing minority in the same, no majority, or majorities, of states or people
me. At the same time the shipyard at Norfolk was abandoned after an attempt to destroy it. About midnight of April 20th, a fire was started in the yard, which continued to increase, and before daylight the work of destruction extended to two immense ship houses, one of which contained the entire frame of a seventy-four-gun ship, and to the long ranges of stores and offices on each side of the entrance. The great ship Pennsylvania was burned, and the frigates Merrimac and Columbus, and the Delaware, Raritan, Plymouth, and Germantown were sunk. A vast amount of machinery, valuable engines, small arms, and chronometers, was broken up and rendered entirely useless. The value of the property destroyed was estimated at several millions of dollars. This property thus destroyed had been accumulated and constructed with laborious care and skillful ingenuity during a course of years to fulfill one of the objects of the Constitution, which was expressed in these words, To provide for the c
1 2