hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
United States (United States) 1,340 0 Browse Search
W. T. Sherman 340 6 Browse Search
Ulysses S. Grant 275 3 Browse Search
James Longstreet 260 4 Browse Search
J. E. Johnston 244 0 Browse Search
T. J. Jackson 240 4 Browse Search
Abraham Lincoln 225 3 Browse Search
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) 219 1 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 180 0 Browse Search
A. P. Hill 168 14 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. Search the whole document.

Found 237 total hits in 27 results.

1 2 3
Kentucky (Kentucky, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.11
onfederate States, to seize all property as plunder, and to let the negroes go free. Our posterity, reading that history, will blush that such facts are on record. It was estimated on the floor of the House of Representatives that the aggregate amount of property within our limits subject to be acted upon by the provisions of this act would affect upward of six million people, and would deprive them of property of the value of nearly five thousand million dollars. Said Garrett Davis of Kentucky: Was there ever, in any country that God's sun ever beamed upon, a legislative measure involving such an amount of property and such numbers of propertyholders? But this is only one feature of the confiscation act which was applied to persons who were within the Confederate States, in such a position that the ordinary process of the United States courts could not be served upon them. They could be reached only by the armies. There was another feature equally flagrant and criminal.
Mexico (Mexico, Mexico) (search for this): chapter 1.11
, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; to raise and support armies; to provide and maintain a navy; to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. . . . This is the grant of power under which the government of the United States makes war upon a foreign nation. If it had not been given in the Constitution, there would not have been any power under which to conduct a foreign war, such as that of 1812 against Great Britain or that of 1846 against Mexico. In such conflicts the nations engaged recognize each other as separate sovereignties and as public enemies, and use against each other all the powers granted by the law of nations. One of these powers is the confiscation of the property of the enemy. Under the law of nations of modern days this confiscation is limited in extent, made under a certain form, and for a defined object. For the modern laws of war one must look to the usages of civilized states and to the publicists who had
England (United Kingdom) (search for this): chapter 1.11
ant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; to raise and support armies; to provide and maintain a navy; to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. . . . This is the grant of power under which the government of the United States makes war upon a foreign nation. If it had not been given in the Constitution, there would not have been any power under which to conduct a foreign war, such as that of 1812 against Great Britain or that of 1846 against Mexico. In such conflicts the nations engaged recognize each other as separate sovereignties and as public enemies, and use against each other all the powers granted by the law of nations. One of these powers is the confiscation of the property of the enemy. Under the law of nations of modern days this confiscation is limited in extent, made under a certain form, and for a defined object. For the modern laws of war one must look to the usages of civilized st
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 1.11
insurrection against the Government of the United States after the President of the United States ss in court shall be for the benefit of the United States and the informer equally. section 4. Tinsurrection against the Government of the United States, any person claimed to be held to labor orsuch labor, any law of the State or of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding. And whentile service against the Government of the United States contrary to the provisions of this act. position that the ordinary process of the United States courts could not be served upon them. Theted in these words of the President of the United States. Was he ignorant of their existence, or donstrued as to prejudice any claims of the United States or of any particular States. Constitutind afterward occupied by the forces of the United States, shall be deemed captives of war, and shalan objection to this assertion, that the Confederate States were out of the Union and beyond the pro[54 more...]
Sumner (search for this): chapter 1.11
ates government at the commencement of 1862 the willing aid of United States Congress attempt to legislate the subversion of our social institutions slavery the cause of all troubles statements of President Lincoln's inaugural declaration of Sumner abolition legislation the power based on necessity the system of legislation devised confiscation how permitted by the law of nations views of Wheaton; of J. Q. Adams; of Secretary Marcy; of Chief Justice Marshall nature of confiscation anch, 1861, President Lincoln said: I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. The leader (Sumner) of the Abolition party in Congress, on February 25, 1861, said in the Senate, I take this occasion to declare most explicitly that I do not think that Congress has any right to interfere with slavery in a State. The principle thus announced had
John Quincy Adams (search for this): chapter 1.11
abolition legislation the power based on necessity the system of legislation devised confiscation how permitted by the law of nations views of Wheaton; of J. Q. Adams; of Secretary Marcy; of Chief Justice Marshall nature of confiscation and proceedings provisions of the acts confiscation of property within reach procedurerritory. This exemption extends even to the case of an absolute and unqualified conquest of the enemy's country. Elements of International Law, p. 421. John Quincy Adams, in a letter to the Secretary of State dated August 22, 1815, says: Our object is the restoration of all property, including slaves, which, by the usages of their existence, or did he seek to cover up his violation of them by a deceptive use of language? It may not be unseasonable to repeat here the words of John Quincy Adams in his letter of August 22, 1815, as above stated: Our object is the restoration of all the property, including slaves, which, by the usages of war among
William L. Marcy (search for this): chapter 1.11
atements of President Lincoln's inaugural declaration of Sumner abolition legislation the power based on necessity the system of legislation devised confiscation how permitted by the law of nations views of Wheaton; of J. Q. Adams; of Secretary Marcy; of Chief Justice Marshall nature of confiscation and proceedings provisions of the acts confiscation of property within reach procedure against persons as enemies and traitors emancipation to be secured remarks of President Lincoln on, by the usages of war among civilized nations, ought not to have been taken. All private property on shore was of that description. It was entitled by the laws of war to exemption from capture. American State Papers, 116, etc. Again, William L. Marcy, Secretary of State, in a letter to the Count de Sartiges dated July 28, 1856, says: The prevalence of Christianity and the progress of civilization have greatly mitigated the severity of the ancient mode of prosecuting hostilities. . .
J. N. Brown (search for this): chapter 1.11
rity were ready to throw aside the last fragments of the Constitution in order to secure our subjugation. The argument for this usurpation was thus framed: assuming that the state of the nation was one of general hostility, and that, being so involved, it possessed the power of self-defense, it was asserted that the supreme power of making and conducting war was expressly placed in Congress by the Constitution. The whole powers of war are vested in Congress. United States Supreme Court, Brown vs. United States, 1 Cranch. There is no such power in the judiciary, and the Executive is simply commander-in-chief of the army and navy; all other powers not necessarily implied in the command of the military and naval forces are expressly given to Congress. The theory was that the contingency of actual hostilities suspended the Constitution and gave to Congress the sovereign power of a nation creating new relations and conferring new rights, imposing extraordinary obligations on the ci
Charles Marshall (search for this): chapter 1.11
incoln's inaugural declaration of Sumner abolition legislation the power based on necessity the system of legislation devised confiscation how permitted by the law of nations views of Wheaton; of J. Q. Adams; of Secretary Marcy; of Chief Justice Marshall nature of confiscation and proceedings provisions of the acts confiscation of property within reach procedure against persons as enemies and traitors emancipation to be secured remarks of President Lincoln on signing the Bill remar in possession of an enemy's country is against the usage of modern times. Such a proceeding at this day would be condemned by the enlightened judgment of the world, unless warranted by particular circumstances. The words of the late Chief Justice Marshall on the capture and confiscation of private property should not be omitted: It may not be unworthy of remark that it is very unusual, even in cases of conquest, for the conqueror to do more than displace the sovereign, and assume domin
Peters (search for this): chapter 1.11
nion over the country. The modern usage of nations, which has become law, would be violated; that sense of justice and of right which is acknowledged and felt by the whole civilized world would be outraged, if private property should be generally confiscated and private rights annulled. The people change their allegiance; their relation to their ancient sovereign is dissolved; but their relations to each other and their rights of property remain undisturbed. United States vs. Percheman, 7 Peters, 51. The government of the United States recognized us as under the law of nations by attempting to use against us one of the powers of that law. Yet, if we were subject to this power, we were most certainly entitled to its protection. This was refused. That government exercised against us all the severities of the law, and outraged that sense of justice and of right which is acknowledged and felt by the whole civilized world by rejecting the observance of its ameliorations. The act o
1 2 3