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) 1,788 0 Browse Search
Frederick H. Dyer, Compendium of the War of the Rebellion: Regimental Histories 514 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. 260 0 Browse Search
Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events, Diary from December 17, 1860 - April 30, 1864 (ed. Frank Moore) 194 0 Browse Search
Benson J. Lossing, Pictorial Field Book of the Civil War. Volume 3. 168 0 Browse Search
Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 7. (ed. Frank Moore) 166 0 Browse Search
George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent, Vol. 4, 15th edition. 152 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. 150 0 Browse Search
Benson J. Lossing, Pictorial Field Book of the Civil War. Volume 1. 132 0 Browse Search
Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Massachusetts in the Army and Navy during the war of 1861-1865, vol. 2 122 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 Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) or search for Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) in all documents.

Your search returned 33 results in 19 document sections:

1 2
the same purport from inhabitants of the territory, accompanied by a letter from William Henry Harrison, the governor (afterward President of the United States), had been under consideration nearly two years earlier. The prayer of these petitions was for a suspension of the sixth article of the ordinance, so as to permit the introduction of slaves into the territory. The whole subject was referred to a select committee of seven members, consisting of representatives from Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Kentucky, and New York, and the delegate from the Indiana territory. On the 14th of the ensuing February (1806), this committee made a report favorable to the prayer of the petitioners, and recommending a suspension of the prohibitory article for ten years. In their report the committee, after stating their opinion that a qualified suspension of the article in question would be beneficial to the people of the Indiana territory, proceeded to say: The suspension of t
ends to restore peace and perpetuate the Union of equal States; upon us of the minority section rests the duty to maintain our equality and community rights; and the means in one case or the other must be such as each can control. The resolution of Powell was eventually adopted on the 18th of December, and on the 20th the Committee was appointed, consisting of Powell and Crittenden of Kentucky, Hunter of Virginia, Toombs of Georgia, Davis of Mississippi, Douglas of Illinois, Bigler of Pennsylvania, Rice of Minnesota, Collamer of Vermont, Seward of New York, Wade of Ohio, Doolittle of Wisconsin, and Grimes of Iowa. The first five of the list, as here enumerated, were Southern men; the next three were Northern Democrats, or Conservatives; the last five, Northern Republicans, so called. The supposition was that any measure agreed upon by the representatives of the three principal divisions of public opinion would be approved by the Senate and afterward ratified by the House of Rep
hat a declaration in its favor was defeated by only a small majority, and that on the ground of expediency. At a still later period, abolitionist lecturers and teachers were mobbed, assaulted, and threatened with tar and feathers in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and other states. One of them (Lovejoy) was actually killed by a mob in Illinois as late as 1837. These facts prove incontestably that the sectional hostility which exhibited itself in 1820, on tany one was seduced from his owner, it was done furtively and secretly, without show or force, and as any other moral offense would be committed. State laws favored the owner, and to a greater extent than the act of Congress did or could. In Pennsylvania there was an act (it was passed in 1780, and only repealed in 1847) discriminating between the traveler and sojourner and the permanent resident, allowing the former to remain six months in the State before his slaves would become subject to t
as 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 tpointed by the other States of the Union, at the city of Philadelphia, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on the second Monday in May next, for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of Federal Government adequate to the exigencies thereof. The act of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania constituted and appointed certain deputies, designated by name, with powers to meet such depue were substantially in accord with the others—being almost literally identical with those of Pennsylvania—but the following proviso was added: So, always, and provided, that such alterations or furthss 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 and fifty tho<
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
, and twelve other like acts, gave to the Constitution all the life and validity it ever had, or could have, as to the thirteen united or associated States. Pennsylvania acted next (December 12, 1787), the ratification not being finally accomplished without strong opposition, on grounds which will be referred to hereafter. In announcing its decision, the convention of this state began as follows: In the name of the people of Pennsylvania. Be it known unto all men that we, the delegates of the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in General Convention assembled, etc., etc., concluding with these words: By these presents, do, in the name and bPennsylvania, in General Convention assembled, etc., etc., concluding with these words: By these presents, do, in the name and by the authority of the same people, and for ourselves, assent to and ratify the foregoing Constitution for the United States of 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 d
Providence of Massachusetts Bay, to discontinue his fortifications. American Archives, Fourth Series, Vol. I, p. 908. These were the people referred to by the Congress; the children of the Pilgrims, who occupied at that period the town of Boston and the province of Massachusetts Bay, would have been not a little astonished to be reckoned as one people, in any other respect than that of the common cause, with the Roman Catholics of Maryland, the Episcopalians of Virginia, the Quakers of Pennsylvania, or the Baptists of Rhode Island. The other citation of Everett is from the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence: When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, etc., etc. This, he says, characterizes the good 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 Inde
he people, on 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 conventi
nent 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, of several and separate sovereignties joining in a confederacy— they wounity) 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 stat
mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union. Ibid., No. Lxxxi. In the same paragraph he uses these terms, sovereign and sovereignty, repeatedly—always with reference to the states, respectively and severally. Benjamin Franklin advocated equality of suffrage in the Senate as a means of securing the sovereignties of the individual States. See Elliott's Debates, Vol. V, p. 266. James Wilson of Pennsylvania said sovereignty is in the people before they make a Constitution, and remains in them, and described the people as being thirteen independent sovereignties. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 443. Gouverneur Morris, who was, as well as Wilson, one of the warmest advocates in the convention of a strong central government, spoke of the Constitution as a compact, and of the parties to it as each enjoying sovereign power. See Life of Gouverneur Morris, Vol. III, p. 193. Roger Sherman of Connecticut de
1 2