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) 16,340 0 Browse Search
England (United Kingdom) 6,437 1 Browse Search
France (France) 2,462 0 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 2,310 0 Browse Search
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) 1,788 0 Browse Search
Europe 1,632 0 Browse Search
New England (United States) 1,606 0 Browse Search
Canada (Canada) 1,474 0 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 1,468 0 Browse Search
Mexico (Mexico, Mexico) 1,404 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History (ed. Benson Lossing). Search the whole document.

Found 137 total hits in 56 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6
England (United Kingdom) (search for this): entry 1567
eclaration was the celebrated pamphlet by Sir John Dalrymple, The rights of Great Britain asserted against the claims of America: being an answer to the Declaration disruption proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence was a result which Great Britain had used every means most fitted to bring about, such as vacillation in couutterances, had all along been using. In the development of political life in England and America, there had already been created a vast literature of constitutionas of the state. The question of money was not with them so immediate. But in England it was otherwise. On this point of taxes the ablest pens and most eloquent tose of resuming to the crown many of those powers which, by the constitution of England, did not then belong to it, and that in this purpose, at least during the firsior to the year 1778, according to Lecky, the King had laboriously built up in England a system of personal government ; and it was because he was unwilling to have
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): entry 1567
ell as by conservatives. It has been censured for its substance, it has been censured for its form, for its misstatements of fact, for its fallacies in reasoning, for its audacious novelties and paradoxes, for its total lack of all novelty, for its repetition of old and threadbare statements, even for its downright plagiarisms; finally for its grandiose and vaporing style. One of the earliest and ablest of its assailants was Thomas Hutchinson, the last civil governor of the colony of Massachusetts, who, being stranded in London by the political storm which had blown him thither, published there, in the autumn of 1776, his Strictures upon the Declaration of the Congress at Philadelphia, wherein, with an unsurpassed knowledge of the origin of the controversy, and with an unsurpassed acumen in the discussion of it, he traverses the entire document, paragraph by paragraph, for the purpose of showing that The signers of the Declaration of Independence. its allegations in support o
Michigan (Michigan, United States) (search for this): entry 1567
Declaration of Independence in the light of modern criticism, the. As a student, critic, and compiler of American history Prof. Moses Coit Tyler holds an established position among the most eminent scholars. In 1867 he was appointed to the chair of English Literature at the University of Michigan, which he occupied until 1881, when he was called to the University of Cornell as Professor of American History. On the subject of criticisms on the Declaration of Independence he writes: It can hardly be doubted that some hinderance to the right estimate of the Declaration of Independence is occasioned by either of two opposite conditions of mind, both of which are often to be met with among us: on the one hand, a condition of hereditary, uncritical awe and worship of the American Revolution, and of that state paper as its absolutely perfect and glorious expression; on the other hand, a later condition of cultivated distrust of the Declaration as a piece of writing lifted up into
Jefferson City (Missouri, United States) (search for this): entry 1567
ation which seem to constitute its logical starting-point, as well as its ultimate defence. Perhaps, however, the most frequent form of disparagement to which Jefferson's great state paper has been subjected among us is that which would minimize his merit in composing it, by denying to it the merit of originality. For example, Richard Henry Lee sneered at it as a thing copied from Locke's Treatise on government. The author of a life of Jefferson, published in the year of Jefferson's retirement from the Presidency, suggests that the credit of having composed the Declaration of Independence has been perhaps more generally, than truly, given by the publicdoubtless, nearly the same topics and nearly the same great formulas of political statement, it would yet have been a wholly dif. ferent composition from this of Jefferson's. No one at all familiar with his other writings, as well as with the writings of his chief contemporaries, could ever have a moment's doubt, even if the fact w
United States (United States) (search for this): entry 1567
Sir John Dalrymple, The rights of Great Britain asserted against the claims of America: being an answer to the Declaration of the General Congress—a pamphlet scatterproblem as to the historic justice of our great indictment of the last King of America; and there is deep significance in the fact that this is the very criticism uphad all along been using. In the development of political life in England and America, there had already been created a vast literature of constitutional progress—a the Bill of Rights in 1789; of the great English charters for colonization in America; of the great English exponents of legal and political progress—Sir Edward Coke chief representative bodies, whether local or general, which had convened in America from the time of the Stamp Act Congress until that of the Congress which resol This kingdom has no right to lay a tax on the colonies. Sir, I rejoice that America has resisted. Three millions of people, so dead to all the feelings of libert<
Chatham (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): entry 1567
e people. Already, prior to the year 1778, according to Lecky, the King had laboriously built up in England a system of personal government ; and it was because he was unwilling to have this system disturbed that he then refused, in defiance of the most earnest representations of his own minister and of the most eminent politicians of every party. . . to send for the greatest of living statesmen at the moment when the empire appeared to be in the very agonies of dissolution. . . . Either Chatham or Rockingham would have insisted that the policy of the country should be directed by its responsible ministers and not dictated by an irresponsible sovereign. This refusal of the King to pursue the course which was called for by the constitution, and which would have taken the control of the policy of the government out of his hands, was, according to the same great historian, an act the most criminal in the whole reign of George III. . . . as criminal as any of those acts which led Ch
London (United Kingdom) (search for this): entry 1567
een censured for its substance, it has been censured for its form, for its misstatements of fact, for its fallacies in reasoning, for its audacious novelties and paradoxes, for its total lack of all novelty, for its repetition of old and threadbare statements, even for its downright plagiarisms; finally for its grandiose and vaporing style. One of the earliest and ablest of its assailants was Thomas Hutchinson, the last civil governor of the colony of Massachusetts, who, being stranded in London by the political storm which had blown him thither, published there, in the autumn of 1776, his Strictures upon the Declaration of the Congress at Philadelphia, wherein, with an unsurpassed knowledge of the origin of the controversy, and with an unsurpassed acumen in the discussion of it, he traverses the entire document, paragraph by paragraph, for the purpose of showing that The signers of the Declaration of Independence. its allegations in support of American independence are false a
Grafton (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): entry 1567
g to the same great historian, an act the most criminal in the whole reign of George III. . . . as criminal as any of those acts which led Charles I. to the scaffold. Even so early as the year 1768, according to John Richard Green, George III. had at last reached his aim. . . . In the early days of the ministry (which began in that year) his influence was felt to be predominant. In its later and more disastrous days it was supreme; for Lord North, who became the head of the ministry on Grafton's retirement in 1770, was the mere mouthpiece of the King. Not only did he direct the minister, a careful observer tells us, in all important matters of foreign and domestic policy, but he instructed him as to the management of debates in Parliament, suggested what motions should be made or opposed, and how measures should be carried. He reserved for himself all the patronage, he arranged the whole cast of the administration, settled the relative place and pretensions of ministers of st
Mecklenburg (North Carolina, United States) (search for this): entry 1567
ranter, or the history of Bacon in Virginia. John Stockton Littell describes the Declaration of Independence as that enduring monument at once of patriotism, and of genius and skill in the art of appropriation — asserting that for the sentiments and much of the language of it, Jefferson was indebted to Chief-Justice Drayton's charge to the grand jury of Charleston, delivered in April, 1776, as well as to the Declaration of Independence said to have been adopted by some citizens of Mecklenburg county, N. C., in May, 1775. Even the latest and most critical editor of the writings of Jefferson calls attention to the fact that a glance at the Declaration of Rights, as adopted by Virginia on June 12, 1776, would seem to indicate the source from which Jefferson derived a most important and popular part of his famous production. By no one, however, has the charge of a lack of originality been pressed with so much decisiveness as by John Adams, who took evident pleasure in speaking of it as
Rockingham, N. C. (North Carolina, United States) (search for this): entry 1567
Already, prior to the year 1778, according to Lecky, the King had laboriously built up in England a system of personal government ; and it was because he was unwilling to have this system disturbed that he then refused, in defiance of the most earnest representations of his own minister and of the most eminent politicians of every party. . . to send for the greatest of living statesmen at the moment when the empire appeared to be in the very agonies of dissolution. . . . Either Chatham or Rockingham would have insisted that the policy of the country should be directed by its responsible ministers and not dictated by an irresponsible sovereign. This refusal of the King to pursue the course which was called for by the constitution, and which would have taken the control of the policy of the government out of his hands, was, according to the same great historian, an act the most criminal in the whole reign of George III. . . . as criminal as any of those acts which led Charles I. to t
1 2 3 4 5 6