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
David Hunter 245 3 Browse Search
United States (United States) 186 0 Browse Search
Robert E. Lee 174 0 Browse Search
Lynchburg (Virginia, United States) 172 6 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 158 0 Browse Search
Georgia (Georgia, United States) 142 0 Browse Search
James 135 1 Browse Search
North Carolina (North Carolina, United States) 132 0 Browse Search
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) 128 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 116 2 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 30. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 104 total hits in 43 results.

1 2 3 4 5
Ulysses S. Grant (search for this): chapter 1.34
The South and the Union. [from the Baltimore (Md.) sun, February 4, 1908.] To whom should the Southern people build monuments, to Lee or to Grant, to Lincoln or to Davis? Some years ago a clergyman of Washington, who had been a brave Confederate soldier, made an address in Alexandria, Va., to the Camp of Confederate Veterans, an audience consisting mainly of Virginia people. He referred to the war between the States and said that he supposed that there was no one within the sound blessings of this great and glorious Union because they in their superior wisdom prevented us by force from wilfully throwing away, like naughty children, those same blessings. Let us be consistent and learn to build our monuments to Lincoln and Grant, but for whom we should have forfeited forever the privileges and blessings now secured to us and our children in our common country. Such must logically be the convictions of the man who now looking back at the struggle between the States th
M. D. Lewis (search for this): chapter 1.34
of the men who led us into a terrific struggle, costing hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of millions of money to win a success which when won would, as is assumed above, have put us in a position not only worse than we had then, but worse than our present condition? There can be but one reply. Brave and good men we know them to have been, but very unwise, if not foolish, in leading their people to withdraw from the Union. Compare them with such men as the Virginians, Botts and Lewis, who steadily refused under much odium and obloquy to take any step to leave the Union. Are not these the men whom, if the assumption is correct, we Virginians should honor with monuments and hold up to our children as guides and counselors in public affairs? Compare General Lee and General Thomas, Virginians who took opposite sides in the contest; both brave men, each fighting for the cause he thought right. But which was right? If it was better for us to fall, surely it must follow
Carl Schurz (search for this): chapter 1.34
ve a standing army now three-fold what was abundantly large as late as 1898, and which the President may at his pleasure make five-fold. The terrible danger to liberty in that no intelligent man needs to be told. Expansion was the name affected by its defenders for the foreign conquests of the United States, but, growing confident from impunity, they now frankly call it by its proper name—imperialism. Such staunch and veteran partisans of the North as the late Mr. Godkin, Senator Hoar, Carl Schurz, Charles F. Adams, and other like men have set forth its terrible evils. They show the vile things done on a large scale, and press in vain on the President for a hearing. The President sets forth afresh in his address in Philadelphia on November 22, 1902, his reasons for rejoicing in the career of the armies of conquest in Cuba, Porto Rico and in the Asiatic waters; but his Judge-Advocate-General has to report that I in 20 of this army, the nobleness of which the President so commends,
Pierpont Morgan (search for this): chapter 1.34
rusts. Insolently defying us while they rob us—all of us that eat beef or use a coal fire or coal oil—on a scale that yields them profits a hundred fold more than any Eastern despot ever extorted from his subjects, the trusts could not be ignored. The brave words in which the President declared that the Government had the power and would find the way to curb the trusts bring no relief, nor promise any. It is in strange contrast with the humble attitude in which he so lately approached Pierpont Morgan—a mode of procedure so humiliatingly different from the way that Presidents have hitherto summoned citizens to their councils, that it has justly provoked scornful criticism and bitter satire. As to the future, what may we hope? For those who are humbly submissive to the powers that be there is no doubt a sort of career. Some few Southerners showed long ago that a good name could be sold at a good price to the authorities in Washington. Do any wonder that a Republican party exist<
Aristomenes (search for this): chapter 1.34
for their people. If this aim could not have been realized, even had they been successful in their effort, they can have but small claim to the love and honor of the people whom they, however good their intentions, have led to disaster and ruin. If the independence they aimed at was to be a blessing to their people, success or failure should make no difference in our estimate of them, except that in failure they are even more deserving of the sympathy and reverence of their people, like Aristomenes, Sertorius, Emmett and other unsuccessful patriots. But if success could have brought (as is assumed) no blessing, then the sooner these leaders are forgotten the better. Had Washington and the other leaders in 1776 failed in their efforts to throw off the British yoke, they would still have a strong claim on the gratitude and love of their people, not because they thought they were right, but because they were right. The leaders in Monmouth's rebellion no doubt thought they were right
Charles Francis Adams (search for this): chapter 1.34
rmy now three-fold what was abundantly large as late as 1898, and which the President may at his pleasure make five-fold. The terrible danger to liberty in that no intelligent man needs to be told. Expansion was the name affected by its defenders for the foreign conquests of the United States, but, growing confident from impunity, they now frankly call it by its proper name—imperialism. Such staunch and veteran partisans of the North as the late Mr. Godkin, Senator Hoar, Carl Schurz, Charles F. Adams, and other like men have set forth its terrible evils. They show the vile things done on a large scale, and press in vain on the President for a hearing. The President sets forth afresh in his address in Philadelphia on November 22, 1902, his reasons for rejoicing in the career of the armies of conquest in Cuba, Porto Rico and in the Asiatic waters; but his Judge-Advocate-General has to report that I in 20 of this army, the nobleness of which the President so commends, has been convic
Abraham Lincoln (search for this): chapter 1.34
should the Southern people build monuments, to Lee or to Grant, to Lincoln or to Davis? Some years ago a clergyman of Washington, who essings. Let us be consistent and learn to build our monuments to Lincoln and Grant, but for whom we should have forfeited forever the priviand mortal hurt was done to the cause of constitutional liberty by Lincoln and his followers in forcing the seceding States back into the Unin Richmond some years ago a picture in Judge represented Davis and Lincoln, Lincoln saying: If Davis was a patriot, what was I? This picturLincoln saying: If Davis was a patriot, what was I? This picture sets forth a great truth. One of two things is true; there is no middle ground. If Davis was a patriot, Lincoln was a tyrant. If WashingLincoln was a tyrant. If Washington was a patriot, George III was a tyrant. Lincoln conquered the South and built up a powerful nation, in which true lovers of liberty cannLincoln conquered the South and built up a powerful nation, in which true lovers of liberty cannot rejoice, for it cost the lives of two noble republics, the old United States of America and the Confederate States of America. Berkeley M
Emmett (search for this): chapter 1.34
this aim could not have been realized, even had they been successful in their effort, they can have but small claim to the love and honor of the people whom they, however good their intentions, have led to disaster and ruin. If the independence they aimed at was to be a blessing to their people, success or failure should make no difference in our estimate of them, except that in failure they are even more deserving of the sympathy and reverence of their people, like Aristomenes, Sertorius, Emmett and other unsuccessful patriots. But if success could have brought (as is assumed) no blessing, then the sooner these leaders are forgotten the better. Had Washington and the other leaders in 1776 failed in their efforts to throw off the British yoke, they would still have a strong claim on the gratitude and love of their people, not because they thought they were right, but because they were right. The leaders in Monmouth's rebellion no doubt thought they were right, and died bravely in
Eugene Davis (search for this): chapter 1.34
08.] To whom should the Southern people build monuments, to Lee or to Grant, to Lincoln or to Davis? Some years ago a clergyman of Washington, who had been a brave Confederate soldier, madecy in the world toward universal suffrage make it a reasonable hope? In building monuments to Davis and Lee, Jackson and Stuart we are declaring to the world and to future generations that the cau When the monument to Lee was unveiled in Richmond some years ago a picture in Judge represented Davis and Lincoln, Lincoln saying: If Davis was a patriot, what was I? This picture sets forth a greDavis was a patriot, what was I? This picture sets forth a great truth. One of two things is true; there is no middle ground. If Davis was a patriot, Lincoln was a tyrant. If Washington was a patriot, George III was a tyrant. Lincoln conquered the South andDavis was a patriot, Lincoln was a tyrant. If Washington was a patriot, George III was a tyrant. Lincoln conquered the South and built up a powerful nation, in which true lovers of liberty cannot rejoice, for it cost the lives of two noble republics, the old United States of America and the Confederate States of America. Berk
Robert E. Lee (search for this): chapter 1.34
un, February 4, 1908.] To whom should the Southern people build monuments, to Lee or to Grant, to Lincoln or to Davis? Some years ago a clergyman of Washinhold up to our children as guides and counselors in public affairs? Compare General Lee and General Thomas, Virginians who took opposite sides in the contest; both If it was better for us to fall, surely it must follow that Thomas was right and Lee wrong. When men rise up in resistance to an established government, they must eversal suffrage make it a reasonable hope? In building monuments to Davis and Lee, Jackson and Stuart we are declaring to the world and to future generations that the cause for which Lee fought and Jackson and Stuart and many thousands of our bravest and best died was a good and glorious cause, the cause of constitutional libuggling for independence like their forefathers in 1776. When the monument to Lee was unveiled in Richmond some years ago a picture in Judge represented Davis and
1 2 3 4 5