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
Charles Yelverton 53 1 Browse Search
Norfolk (Virginia, United States) 32 0 Browse Search
Libera 30 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 28 0 Browse Search
Joseph R. Anderson 23 1 Browse Search
Amelia Court House (Virginia, United States) 16 0 Browse Search
Lincoln 15 3 Browse Search
Robert H. Turner 14 0 Browse Search
Wise 14 8 Browse Search
Teresa Longworth 14 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: March 28, 1861., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 257 total hits in 133 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
Louisa, Ky. (Kentucky, United States) (search for this): article 1
a length of time, until the subject had undergone a full and fair investigation. Committee of the Whole. Before Mr. Turner had reached the closing point of his speech, the hour of half-past 10 arrived, and the Convention went into Committee of the Whole, for the purpose of considering the report from the Committee on Federal Relations. Mr. Southall, of Albemarle, who had been for a day or two detained from the Convention by indisposition, resumed the chair. Mr. Ambler, of Louisa, desired to correct, in the Journal of yesterday, the record of the point of order which had been decided against him. Mr. Price, of Greenbrier, who was in the chair at the time specified, gave an explanation of the circumstances under which the decision was rendered. The correction asked for, was ordered to be made, after which Mr. Ambler made a similar request with regard to another portion of the Journal, which was refused by a vote of the Committee. The Chairman said that
Fauquier (Virginia, United States) (search for this): article 1
t would read"were, and still are, independent sovereignties." Mr. Conrad, of Frederick, opposed the amendment. He admitted the rights of States to secede, but denied their sovereignty. He thought it would involve the Convention in that which he, as a lawyer, was unable to affirm. Mr. Montague advocated the amendment, and demanded the yeas and nays upon it. In reply to Mr. Conrad, he contended that if he admitted the right of secession, sovereignty must follow. Mr. Scott, of Fauquier, hoped it would not be the pleasure of the Committee to engraft in this resolution a sentiment so contrary to the fact. He took the ground that Virginia was dependent upon the will of a Confederated Government. Mr. Wise replied to Mr. Scott, declaring that the State of Virginia was more independent now than she was when George the Third recognized her independence. The Union was entered into for the purpose of strengthening her independence. She had the power to declare war, and to
Harrison, Tenn. (Tennessee, United States) (search for this): article 1
o her by the Federal Constitution. He was opposed to the amendment. Mr. Fisher, of Northampton, after an allusion to the State-Rights doctrine advanced by the gentleman from Rockbridge, said that the position occupied by the gentleman from Harrison was as hostile to the report of the committee, as was the position occupied by the State-Rights party in this Convention. Mr. Carlile hoped the gentleman would not pronounce him inconsistent until after he had cast his vote. Mr. Fisher asked pardon. He hoped that when the vote was taken, the gentleman from Harrison would go with him, against the report. He then made an argument in favor of the rights and sovereignty of the States, (quoting freely from Madison's opinions as bearing upon the present issue,) and advocated the amendment. Mr. Slaughter, of Campbell, thought the amendment of the gentleman from Middlesex was out of place, though he agreed with him in many of his positions. The amendment which he preferred wo
Augusta (Georgia, United States) (search for this): article 1
re true, the authors of that instrument did not understand their own work. He quoted from the debates of 1788, from the opinions of Madison, the speeches of Calhoun, to show that the ground occupied in this Convention was untenable. Mr. Dorman, of Rockbridge, gave reasons why he should vote against the amendment, and wanted it to be known that his course was not in opposition to any well understood doctrine of State-rights, or in favor of any idea of consolidation. Mr. Baylor, of Augusta, said he was a State-Rights man; but if the State of Virginia could not make a law in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, how could she be sovereign and independent? So far as his vote could go, he was willing to declare that she was sovereign and independent to the extent that she had powers delegated to her by the Federal Constitution. He was opposed to the amendment. Mr. Fisher, of Northampton, after an allusion to the State-Rights doctrine advanced by the gentlem
Fort Bedford (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): article 1
Scott, Sharp, Sheffey, Sitlingtone Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Spurlock, Staples, Chapman J. Stuart, Sammers, Sutherlin, Tarr, Taylor, Waller, Whitfield, Willey, and Wilson.--89. So the motion to strike out and insert was decided in the negative. Mr. Harvie, of Amelia, said various inquiries had been made of him as to when he should offer his minority report as a substitute for the report of the committee. He gave notice that he would do so at the proper time. Mr. Goggin, of Bedford, said he would give a similar notice that when the gentlemen from Amelia offered his amendment, he should offer his report as an amendment thereto. The Secretary was then directed to read the first resolution of the committee's report, as follows: 1.Be it Resolved and Declared by the People of the State of Virginia, in Convention Assembled, That the States which composed the United States of America, when the Federal Constitution was formed, were independent sovereignties, and in
Portsmouth, Va. (Virginia, United States) (search for this): article 1
ent which he preferred would be to insert "and did not part with their sovereignty in so doing," in the appropriate place. He would not, however, offer any amendment, believing it would destroy the symmetry of the report. Mr. Holladay, of Portsmouth, briefly opposed the amendment, and gave reasons why he should vote for the report. Mr. Macfarland, of Richmond city, made an argument upon the question whether a State that was in a condition of subordination in essential particulars, coured, in support of this position, to the Confederacies of Europe. Prussia, as one of the German Confederacies, might be dragged into a foreign war against her will; yet no one would assert that Prussia was not an independent sovereignty. The right of secession, as truly stated by the gentlemen from Portsmouth, attaches unequivocally to the sovereignty and independence of a States. Pending Mr. Wise's remarks, the hour of 2 having arrived, the Committee took a recess till 4 o'clock P. M.
Rockbridge (Virginia, United States) (search for this): article 1
the authors of that instrument did not understand their own work. He quoted from the debates of 1788, from the opinions of Madison, the speeches of Calhoun, to show that the ground occupied in this Convention was untenable. Mr. Dorman, of Rockbridge, gave reasons why he should vote against the amendment, and wanted it to be known that his course was not in opposition to any well understood doctrine of State-rights, or in favor of any idea of consolidation. Mr. Baylor, of Augusta, saidign and independent to the extent that she had powers delegated to her by the Federal Constitution. He was opposed to the amendment. Mr. Fisher, of Northampton, after an allusion to the State-Rights doctrine advanced by the gentleman from Rockbridge, said that the position occupied by the gentleman from Harrison was as hostile to the report of the committee, as was the position occupied by the State-Rights party in this Convention. Mr. Carlile hoped the gentleman would not pronounce h
Richmond (Virginia, United States) (search for this): article 1
t the amendment of the gentleman from Middlesex was out of place, though he agreed with him in many of his positions. The amendment which he preferred would be to insert "and did not part with their sovereignty in so doing," in the appropriate place. He would not, however, offer any amendment, believing it would destroy the symmetry of the report. Mr. Holladay, of Portsmouth, briefly opposed the amendment, and gave reasons why he should vote for the report. Mr. Macfarland, of Richmond city, made an argument upon the question whether a State that was in a condition of subordination in essential particulars, could be regarded as absolutely sovereign. He was not aware of any popular expression of sentiment upon the specific subject before the Convention, and in the absence thereof he knew of no rule for his guidance except his own reflections of right. The term "sovereign," he conceived, was inapplicable to a State which had delegated a portion of her powers, for a time at
Virginia (Virginia, United States) (search for this): article 1
on on the third Monday in October next. Resolved, That this Convention will adopt an ordinance resuming to the State of Virginia the powers heretofore delegated by her to the Federal Government, to take effect on the third Monday in October nexhe first resolution of the committee's report, as follows: 1.Be it Resolved and Declared by the People of the State of Virginia, in Convention Assembled, That the States which composed the United States of America, when the Federal Constitutioa was dependent upon the will of a Confederated Government. Mr. Wise replied to Mr. Scott, declaring that the State of Virginia was more independent now than she was when George the Third recognized her independence. The Union was entered int, or in favor of any idea of consolidation. Mr. Baylor, of Augusta, said he was a State-Rights man; but if the State of Virginia could not make a law in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, how could she be sovereign and indepen
Halifax (Canada) (search for this): article 1
o for the purpose of strengthening her independence. She had the power to declare war, and to regulate commerce, through the Federal Government.--Whenever she thought an emergency required her to declare war, the Constitution gave her the power to make such a declaration. The very amendment which was now moved, he had tried to have inserted when in committee. It failed there, and it might fail here; but it should not fail, if any effort of his could ensure its success. Mr. Bruce, of Halifax, made some remarks in favor of the amendment. Mr. Rives, of Prince George, proceeded to oppose the doctrine which had been maintained here, of absolute sovereignty. If such a declaration were to be made, it would leave but a very short step between us and omnipotence. He said there was a band of repudiators here, repudiating the action of the Convention of 1787. The minority report, in favor of immediate secession, was denounced by the speaker in most emphatic language.-- He exhorte
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...