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
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 26 0 Browse Search
France (France) 20 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 20 0 Browse Search
Baltimore, Md. (Maryland, United States) 14 0 Browse Search
Edward Everett 12 0 Browse Search
Louis Napoleon 12 0 Browse Search
England (United Kingdom) 10 0 Browse Search
Norfolk (Virginia, United States) 10 0 Browse Search
Hawkins 10 2 Browse Search
Wheat 8 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: December 7, 1860., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 22 total hits in 6 results.

United States (United States) (search for this): article 1
ent logical contradiction springs from a failure to discriminate between the action of States and of individuals under a government like ours.--The laws of the United States, within the sphere of their jurisdiction, are incumbent on the individual citizens of every State in the Union, and the Chief Magistrate being bound "to take cUnion." The Philadelphia Bulletin, in an article attacking the Message, says: By declaring that secession is revolution, and then declaring that the United States have no power to put down revolution, the President puts the country in about as ridiculous a position as any poor country ever was placed in. He virtually sayhave no government at all; in a word, that we are a humbug among nations, and not entitled to a particle of respect from foreign powers. Are the people of the United States prepared to admit all this to be true? Is this the sum of all that has been achieved by our revolution, by our Constitution and by our eighty-four years of ex
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) (search for this): article 1
e obligation rests upon the individual citizens of the State. It is their duty to obey those laws, and the State has no authority to release them from such obedience, because the Federal Constitution, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, are expressly declared by the Constitution itself to be the supreme law of the land, "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. " The Government has precisely the same power to enforce every law of Congress in South Carolina that it has to enforce the Fugitive Slave law in Massachusetts. Mr. Buchanan does not invoke the war-making powers in the one case — why should he in the other? The Times concludes: The Message, in our judgment, is an incendiary document, and will tend still further to exasperate the sectional differences of the day. It backs up the most extravagant of the demands which have been made by the South, endorses their menace of disunion if those demands are not conceded — and promise
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): article 1
t is their duty to obey those laws, and the State has no authority to release them from such obedience, because the Federal Constitution, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, are expressly declared by the Constitution itself to be the supreme law of the land, "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. " The Government has precisely the same power to enforce every law of Congress in South Carolina that it has to enforce the Fugitive Slave law in Massachusetts. Mr. Buchanan does not invoke the war-making powers in the one case — why should he in the other? The Times concludes: The Message, in our judgment, is an incendiary document, and will tend still further to exasperate the sectional differences of the day. It backs up the most extravagant of the demands which have been made by the South, endorses their menace of disunion if those demands are not conceded — and promises the seceding States that the power of the Federal Government
Bachanan (search for this): article 1
utism — inform, perhaps, recognizing Democratic principles, but in reality laying the foundations of an oligarchy or a dictatorship. The most strenuous advocate of Southern rights could not desire more explicit language than that which the President has employed; nor can any Northern man, intelligently appreciating the genius of the federal system, dispute the reasoning adduced in support of the position, or the consequences to which it inevitably leads. "After much serious reflection," Mr. Bachanan declares he has "arrived at the conclusion that neither to Congress nor to any other department of the Government belongs the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw, or has actually withdrawn, from the Confederacy."--The inference is plain, if not indeed expressed, that, in the judgment of Mr. Buchanan, Congress cannot constitutionally confer upon the Executive power to employ military force as against States which may secede. The National Intelligenc
Lincoln (search for this): article 1
upon which they have embarked. The country has to struggle through three months more of this disgraceful imbecility and disloyalty to the Constitution. The New York World, in an article generally commendatory of the Message, says: His views of the inadequacy of the alleged reasons for this formidable secession movement; of the safety and the duty of further deliberation and delay; of the restraints, favorable to conservatism, which the responsibilities of office will impose on Mr. Lincoln, of the absurdity of secession when claimed as a constitutional right, and his construction of his own duties and powers under existing laws, are sound, and well suited to the grave exigency they are intended to meet. But, when he proceeds to address Congress on itsduties, his recommendations seem to us a great deal better than his reasoning. Whether the Federal Government has power to coerce a State into submission will, at this juncture, be thought a question of no practical conse
Buchanan (search for this): article 1
that the Southern States may secede if they please, without fear of coercion. It says: Mr. Buchanan conclusively exhibits the untenableness of a position which would reduce sovereign States to the Confederacy."--The inference is plain, if not indeed expressed, that, in the judgment of Mr. Buchanan, Congress cannot constitutionally confer upon the Executive power to employ military force as and yet holding that Congress has no right to use coercion to prevent secession. In effect, Mr. Buchanan asserts secession to be a constitutional wrong, and yet denies that Congress has the power toof Congress in South Carolina that it has to enforce the Fugitive Slave law in Massachusetts. Mr. Buchanan does not invoke the war-making powers in the one case — why should he in the other? The it makes no difference whether there is thunder sleeping in the national cannon or not. Since Mr. Buchanan's recommendations are patriotic and statesman like, we are in no mood to quarrel with that pa