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) 1,606 0 Browse Search
Lucius R. Paige, History of Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1630-1877, with a genealogical register 462 0 Browse Search
Cambridge History of American Literature: volume 1, Colonial and Revolutionary Literature: Early National Literature: Part I (ed. Trent, William Peterfield, 1862-1939., Erskine, John, 1879-1951., Sherman, Stuart Pratt, 1881-1926., Van Doren, Carl, 1885-1950.) 416 0 Browse Search
Cambridge History of American Literature: volume 2 (ed. Trent, William Peterfield, 1862-1939., Erskine, John, 1879-1951., Sherman, Stuart Pratt, 1881-1926., Van Doren, Carl, 1885-1950.) 286 0 Browse Search
George Bancroft, History of the Colonization of the United States, Vol. 1, 17th edition. 260 0 Browse Search
George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent, Vol. 2, 17th edition. 254 0 Browse Search
Cambridge History of American Literature: volume 3 (ed. Trent, William Peterfield, 1862-1939., Erskine, John, 1879-1951., Sherman, Stuart Pratt, 1881-1926., Van Doren, Carl, 1885-1950.) 242 0 Browse Search
HISTORY OF THE TOWN OF MEDFORD, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, FROM ITS FIRST SETTLEMENT, IN 1630, TO THE PRESENT TIME, 1855. (ed. Charles Brooks) 230 0 Browse Search
George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent, Vol. 3, 15th edition. 218 0 Browse Search
Francis Jackson Garrison, William Lloyd Garrison, 1805-1879; the story of his life told by his children: volume 1 166 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 New England (United States) or search for New England (United States) in all documents.

Your search returned 20 results in 8 document sections:

le of its authority being daily violated. The effect of the repeal was to permit the importation of negroes into South Carolina during the interval from 1803 to 1808. It is probable that an extensive contrabrand trade was carried on by the New England slavers with other ports, on account of the lack of means to enforce the laws of the Southern states forbidding it. Virginia was the first of all the states, North or South, to prohibit it, and Georgia was the first to incorporate such a prohi03, and the subsequent admission of a portion of that territory into the Union as a state, afforded one of the earliest occasions for the manifestation of sectional jealousy, and gave rise to the first threats or warnings (which proceeded from New England) of a dissolution of the Union. Yet, although negro slavery existed in Louisiana, no pretext was made of that as an objection to the acquisition. The ground of opposition is frankly stated in a letter of that period from one Massachusetts st
Chapter 9: Preparation for withdrawal from the Union Northern precedents New England secessionists Cabot, Pickering, Quincy, etc. on the acquisition of Louisiana the Hartford convention the Massachusetts Legislature on the annexation of Texas, etc. The convention of South Carolina had already (on December 20, are found of the assertion of this right, and of a purpose entertained at various times to put it in execution. Notably is this true of Massachusetts and other New England states. The acquisition of Louisiana in 1803 had created much dissatisfaction in those states for the reason, expressed by an eminent citizen of Massachusetts,sisted of delegates chosen by the legislatures of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, with an irregular or imperfect representation from the other two New England states, New Hampshire and Vermont, Maine was not then a state. convened for the purpose of considering the grievances complained of by those states in conne
nerations after the Revolution there was no geographical line of demarkation for such differences. The African slave trade was carried on almost exclusively by New England merchants and Northern ships. Jefferson—a Southern man, the founder of the Democratic party, and the vindicator of state rights—was in theory a consistent enem811, when the Louisiana purchase, and afterward the admission into the Union of the state of that name, elicited threats of disunion from the representatives of New England. The complaint was not of slavery, but of the acquisition of more weight at the other extremity of the Union. It was not slavery that threatened a rupture in ited by Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight. This was a provision inserted for the protection of the interests of the slave-trading New England states, forbidding any prohibition of the trade by Congress for twenty years, and thus virtually giving sanction to the legitimacy of the demand which that trad
e people in the aggregate a great fallacy exposed mistake of Judge Story colonial relations the United colonies of New England other associations Independence of communities traced from Germany to great Britain, and from great Britain to Amerindividual citizens to provide money for the purpose. There were, however, local and partial confederacies among the New England colonies, long before the Declaration of Independence. As early as the year 1643 a Congress had been organized of delegates from Massachusetts, Plymouth, New Haven, and Connecticut, under the style of The United colonies of New England. The objects of this confederacy, according to Bancroft, were protection against the encroachments of the Dutch and French, secur or province, but styled themselves united colonies—colonies united for purposes of mutual counsel and defense, as the New England colonies had been united more than a hundred years before. It was as United States—not as a state, or united people—t<
the spirit in which the Union had been founded—enough of respect for the sovereignty of states and of regard for the limitations of the Constitution—to prevent a conflict of arms. The compromise of 1833 was adopted, which South Carolina agreed to accept, the principle for which she contended being virtually conceded. Meantime there had been no lack, as we have already seen, of assertions of the sovereign rights of the states from other quarters. The declaration of these rights by the New England states and their representatives, on the acquisition of Louisiana in 1803, on the admission of the state of that name in 1811-12, and on the question of the annexation of Texas in 1843-45, have been referred to in another place. Among the resolutions of the Massachusetts legislature, in relation to the proposed annexation of Texas, adopted in February, 1845, were the following: 2. Resolved, That there has hitherto been no precedent of the admission of a foreign state or foreign terr
nt; they were not needed, and therefore not to be found in relation to the reserved powers of the states, on which the general government was forbidden to intrude by the ninth article of the amendments. In view of the small territory of the New England states, comparatively to that of the Middle and Southern states, and the probability of the creation of new states in the large territory of some of these latter, it might well have been anticipated that in the course of time the New England sNew England states would become less than one-fourth of the members of the Union. Nothing is less likely than that the watchful patriots of that region would have consented to a form of government which should give to a majority of three-fourths of the states the power to deprive them of their dearest rights and privileges. Yet to this extremity the new-born theory of the power of amendment would go. Against this insidious assault, this wooden horse which it is threatened to introduce into the citadel of
the liberty and happiness of his country. Neither could I be unaware that such was the sentiment of the Democracy of New England. For it was my fortune lately to serve under a President drawn from the neighboring State of New Hampshire, and I kno of you there are desirous to put a stop to the course of this agitation. For me, I have learned since I have been in New England the vast mass of true State-rights Democrats to be found within its limits—though not represented in the halls of Conglf to-night, which has evinced itself in Boston since I have been here, and showed itself in every town and village of New England where I have gone. I have staid here, too, long enough to learn that, though not represented in Congress, there is a large mass of as true Democrats as are to be found in any portion of the Union within the limits of New England. Their purposes, their construction of the Constitution, their hopes for the future, their respect for the past, is the same as that whi
concerning with-drawal of states, 220. Thirteen, committee of, 171. Thomas, Col. L., 243. Thompson, —, 29. Tillinghast, Capt., 329. Toombs, Robert, 37, 58, 59, 175, 204, 206. Selected secretary of state (Confederacy), 207. Townsend, Col., Frederick, 297. Trent (ship), 402. Tyler, John, pres. U. S., 9. Delegate to Peace Congress, 214, 216. U Union (Bangor, Me.). Remarks on coercion, 221. Union bank of Mississippi, 426-27. United colonies of New England, 99-100. States of America, 131. Origin, 98, 102, 109. V Van Dorn, General, 384. Varnum, —, 62. Vattel, — Remarks on sovereignty, 123. Vaughn, Col. John C., 298-99. Vermont, 63. Virginia, 42, 259, 379-80. Slavery question, 1, 2, 27. Northwestern territory, 4, 28, 41. John Brown raid, 27, 36. Commissioners to Annapolis, 76. Instructions to delegates to Constitutional convention, 78. Ratification of Constitution, 93-94; amendments proposed, 94. Right of<