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) 324 0 Browse Search
Richmond (Virginia, United States) 294 28 Browse Search
Virginia (Virginia, United States) 262 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 210 2 Browse Search
Andersonville, Ga. (Georgia, United States) 177 1 Browse Search
Washington (United States) 162 2 Browse Search
Arkansas (Arkansas, United States) 116 0 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 114 0 Browse Search
Georgia (Georgia, United States) 106 0 Browse Search
William T. Sherman 105 1 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 1. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones).

Found 11,630 total hits in 3,040 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...
William H. Seward (search for this): chapter 1.1
sion. (Lunt, 328). Was there anything in all this calculated to discourage such attempts for the future? On the contrary, would it not be apt to stir up still more deeply excited minds, and the next attempt would probably have caused much more suffering. To expect that the attempt to cast a lighted match into a powder magazine would fail more than once, would be chimerical indeed. In considering the value of his defences under the constitution, a Southern man could not well forget that Mr. Seward, the leader of the party in power, had not only declared the conflict between freedom and slavery to be irrepressible, but had affirmed there was a higher law than the constitution, to which the latter must yield, or that the famous Helper book, endorsed and recommended generally by the Republican members of Congress, declared that our own banner is inscribed: no co-operation with slaveholders in politics; no fellowship with them in religion; no affiliation with them in society; no recogni
ore suffering. To expect that the attempt to cast a lighted match into a powder magazine would fail more than once, would be chimerical indeed. In considering the value of his defences under the constitution, a Southern man could not well forget that Mr. Seward, the leader of the party in power, had not only declared the conflict between freedom and slavery to be irrepressible, but had affirmed there was a higher law than the constitution, to which the latter must yield, or that the famous Helper book, endorsed and recommended generally by the Republican members of Congress, declared that our own banner is inscribed: no co-operation with slaveholders in politics; no fellowship with them in religion; no affiliation with them in society; no recognition of pro-slavery men, except as ruffians, outlaws and criminals. Again: we are determined to abolish slavery at all hazards. With such a history of the administration of the constitution by the party in power, there was no very pleasant o
C. T. Crittenden (search for this): chapter 1.1
the slaveholder in the future. Had he any hope from amendments? That no effort to save the Union should be spared, Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, introduced certain resolutions proposing amendments to the constitution, which would have saved the Unir things, that the provisions of the constitution are ample for the preservation of the Union, and the resolutions of Mr. Crittenden were voted down, and the substitute adopted by a united vote of the Republicans. Says Lunt: The vote of the Republic had deliberately made up their minds to refuse any negotiation. (Lunt's Origin of the War, p. 411). The adoption of Mr. Crittenden's resolutions, it was said by Mr. Douglass, would have saved every Southern State except South Carolina. Undoubtedly. Resolutions were adopted by this body, composed of able and eminent men from the different States, very similar to Mr. Crittenden's, which met with no better success. Under these circumstances what were the slaveholding States to do? In 1790 the
Horace F. Clark (search for this): chapter 1.1
d every Southern vote except the South Carolina senators, who had withdrawn. They proposed to adopt, in effect, the Missouri compromise line, to prohibit Congress from abolishing the slave trade between the States, or slavery in places where the United States had exclusive jurisdiction, or in the District of Columbia, without the consent of Maryland and of the slaveholders, and proposed a more effectual provision for the recovery of fugitive slaves. For these, a substitute was offered by Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, declaring, amongst other things, that the provisions of the constitution are ample for the preservation of the Union, and the resolutions of Mr. Crittenden were voted down, and the substitute adopted by a united vote of the Republicans. Says Lunt: The vote of the Republican members of the Senate was a blank denial of the necessity of compromise, and showed, of course, that they had deliberately made up their minds to refuse any negotiation. (Lunt's Origin of the War, p
ns of the constitution are ample for the preservation of the Union, and the resolutions of Mr. Crittenden were voted down, and the substitute adopted by a united vote of the Republicans. Says Lunt: The vote of the Republican members of the Senate was a blank denial of the necessity of compromise, and showed, of course, that they had deliberately made up their minds to refuse any negotiation. (Lunt's Origin of the War, p. 411). The adoption of Mr. Crittenden's resolutions, it was said by Mr. Douglass, would have saved every Southern State except South Carolina. Undoubtedly such would have been the effect of a general agreement upon these resolutions between the two sections. But did the Rebublicans desire it? It would seem not from the postscript to Mr. Chandler's letter to Governor Blair: Some of the manufacturing States think that a fight would be awful. Without a little blood-letting, this Union will not, in my opinion, be worth a curse. This was from a senator from Michigan,
D. T. Chandler (search for this): chapter 1.1
the necessity of compromise, and showed, of course, that they had deliberately made up their minds to refuse any negotiation. (Lunt's Origin of the War, p. 411). The adoption of Mr. Crittenden's resolutions, it was said by Mr. Douglass, would have saved every Southern State except South Carolina. Undoubtedly such would have been the effect of a general agreement upon these resolutions between the two sections. But did the Rebublicans desire it? It would seem not from the postscript to Mr. Chandler's letter to Governor Blair: Some of the manufacturing States think that a fight would be awful. Without a little blood-letting, this Union will not, in my opinion, be worth a curse. This was from a senator from Michigan, a man of much influence in his party. Virginia, not yet giving up her hope of preserving the Union, interposed to call a peace conference. Resolutions were adopted by this body, composed of able and eminent men from the different States, very similar to Mr. Crittenden
Montgomery Blair (search for this): chapter 1.1
e, and showed, of course, that they had deliberately made up their minds to refuse any negotiation. (Lunt's Origin of the War, p. 411). The adoption of Mr. Crittenden's resolutions, it was said by Mr. Douglass, would have saved every Southern State except South Carolina. Undoubtedly such would have been the effect of a general agreement upon these resolutions between the two sections. But did the Rebublicans desire it? It would seem not from the postscript to Mr. Chandler's letter to Governor Blair: Some of the manufacturing States think that a fight would be awful. Without a little blood-letting, this Union will not, in my opinion, be worth a curse. This was from a senator from Michigan, a man of much influence in his party. Virginia, not yet giving up her hope of preserving the Union, interposed to call a peace conference. Resolutions were adopted by this body, composed of able and eminent men from the different States, very similar to Mr. Crittenden's, which met with no bett
J. J. Webster (search for this): chapter 1.1
o those extremities? What else could the South do but separate, if possible, from the majority which ruled the government, and were animated by such feelings? Mr. Webster, the great apostle of Union in 1851, had said: I do not hesitate to say and repeat, that if the Northern States refuse wilfully or deliberately to carry into efd to carry into effect that part of the constitution? Was the South bound any longer to keep the compact, according to this high authority? In this opinion of Mr. Webster, Mr. Jefferson undoubtedly concurred. Says Lunt, p. 203: Mr. Jefferson took a different view of the subject, and it is proper to give his opinion as stated by proves that we did not suspect her wrongfully. The South had either to acquiesce in this oppression tamely and submissively, or fight to avert it. According to Mr. Webster, she had the constitutional right to do this; according to Mr. Greeley, she had the moral right to do this. She fought to avert these injuries, and because she
r. Webster, Mr. Jefferson undoubtedly concurred. Says Lunt, p. 203: Mr. Jefferson took a different view of the subject, and it is proper to give his opinion as stated by Mr. John Q. Adams (who appears to have agreed with him) in his eulogy on Mr. Madison. Mr. Adams said: Concurring in the doctrines that the separate States have a right to interpose in cases of palpable infractions of the constitution by the government of the United States, and that the alien and sedition acts presented a case n justly styled the father of the constitution. The government created by it was put into operation with her Washington, the father of his country, at its head; her Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, in his cabinet; her Madison, the great advocate of the constitution, in the legislative hall. Under the leading of Virginia statesmen the Revolution of 1798 was brought about, Louisiana was acquired, and the second war of independence was waged. Throughout the whole
John Q. Adams (search for this): chapter 1.1
ecise case occurred? Had not the North deliberately and persistently refused to carry into effect that part of the constitution? Was the South bound any longer to keep the compact, according to this high authority? In this opinion of Mr. Webster, Mr. Jefferson undoubtedly concurred. Says Lunt, p. 203: Mr. Jefferson took a different view of the subject, and it is proper to give his opinion as stated by Mr. John Q. Adams (who appears to have agreed with him) in his eulogy on Mr. Madison. Mr. Adams said: Concurring in the doctrines that the separate States have a right to interpose in cases of palpable infractions of the constitution by the government of the United States, and that the alien and sedition acts presented a case of such infraction, Mr. Jefferson considered them as absolutely null and void, and thought the State legislatures competent, not only to declare, but to make them so, to resist their execution within their respective borders by physical force, and to secede from
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...