hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity (current method)
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position
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 a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 1. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 331 total hits in 46 results.

1 2 3 4 5
s policy receives these two confirmations. After the return of the former to Richmond, the Convention sent the commission, which has been described, composed of Messrs. Wm. B. Preston, A. H. H. Stuart, and Geo. W. Randolph. They were to ascertain definitely what the President's policy was to be. They endeavored to reach Washington in the early part of the week in which Fort Sumter was bombarded, but were delayed by storms and high water, so that they only reached there via Baltimore, Friday, April 12th. They appeared promptly at the White House, and were put off until Saturday for their formal interview, although Lincoln saw them for a short time. On Saturday Lincoln read to them a written answer to the resolutions of Convention laid before him, which was obviously scarcely dry from the pen of a clerk. This paper, says Mr. Stuart, was ambiguous and evasive, but in the main professed peaceful intentions. Mr. Stuart, in answer to this paper, spoke freely and at large, urging forbea
April, 1861 AD (search for this): chapter 6.38
n history as an illustration of what a brave people can do in defence of their liberties, after having exhausted every means of pacification. ] In March, 1865, being with the army in Petersburg, Virginia, I had the pleasure of meeting Colonel Baldwin at a small entertainment at a friend's house, where he conversed with me some two hours on public affairs. During this time, he detailed to me the history of his private mission, from the Virginia Secession Convention, to Mr. Lincoln in April, 1861. The facts he gave me have struck me, especially since the conquest of the South, as of great importance in a history of the origin of the war. It was my earnest hope that Colonel Baldwin would reduce them into a narrative for publication, and I afterwards took measures to induce him to do so, but I fear without effect. Should it appear that he has left such a narrative, while it will confirm the substantial fidelity of my narrative at second hand, it will also supersede mine, and of th
March, 1865 AD (search for this): chapter 6.38
at when soon after the capture of Fort Sumter and Mr. Lincoln's proclamation, a prominent Northern politician wrote Colonel Baldwin to ask: What will the Union men of Virginia do now? he immediately replied: There are now no Union men in Virginia. But those who were Union men will stand to their arms, and make a fight which shall go down in history as an illustration of what a brave people can do in defence of their liberties, after having exhausted every means of pacification. ] In March, 1865, being with the army in Petersburg, Virginia, I had the pleasure of meeting Colonel Baldwin at a small entertainment at a friend's house, where he conversed with me some two hours on public affairs. During this time, he detailed to me the history of his private mission, from the Virginia Secession Convention, to Mr. Lincoln in April, 1861. The facts he gave me have struck me, especially since the conquest of the South, as of great importance in a history of the origin of the war. It was
John B. Baldwin (search for this): chapter 6.38
of losing a part by the lamented death of Colonel Baldwin. What I here attempt to do, is to give fting as usher, or porter, was directed by Colonel Baldwin's companion, to inform the President thatstate of opinion and purpose there. Upon Colonel Baldwin's portraying the sentiments which prevaile all this? turning almost fiercely upon Colonel Baldwin. He replied: Why, Mr. President, you didry, in a proclamation of five lines, said Colonel Baldwin, and we pledge ourselves that Virginia (aington. In a letter to me, he says: When Colonel Baldwin returned to Richmond, he reported to the the last four days; and the very men whom Colonel Baldwin found in conclave with him were probably cede. And above all, the policy urged by Colonel Baldwin would have disappointed the hopes of legiroclamation. The other confirmation of Colonel Baldwin's hypothesis was presented a few weeks afgle objection, both to the wise advice of Colonel Baldwin and Mr. Stuart, was: Then what would beco[35 more...]
Samuel P. Bates (search for this): chapter 6.38
spoke freely and at large, urging forbearance and the evacuation of the forts, &c. Lincoln made the objection that all the goods would be imported through the ports of Charleston, &c., and the sources of revenue dried up. I remember, says Mr. Stuart, that he used this homely expression: If I do that, what will become of my revenue? I might as well shut up house-keeping at once! But his declarations were distinctly pacific, and he expressly disclaimed all purpose of war. Mr. Seward and Mr. Bates, Attorney General, also gave Mr. Stuart the same assurances of peace. The next day the commissioners returned to Richmond, and the very train on which they traveled carried Lincoln's proclamation, calling for the seventy-five thousand men to wage a war of coercion. This proclamation, says Mr. Stuart, was carefully withheld from us, although it was in print; and we knew nothing of it until Monday morning, when it appeared in the Richmond papers. When I saw it at breakfast, I thought it m
J. A. Campbell (search for this): chapter 6.38
me of my life of Jackson had been published in London, in which I characterized the shameless lie told by Seward to the commissioners from Montgomery, through Judge Campbell, touching the evacuation of Sumter. This friend and apologist of Seward said that I was unjust to him, because when he promised the evacuation, he designed att, had advised a temporizing policy towards the Montgomery government, without violence, and Mr. Lincoln had acceded to their policy. Hence, the promises to Judge Campbell. Meantime, the radical governors came down, having great wrath, to terrorize the administration. They spoke in this strain: Seward cries perpetually that weions and threats of popular rage, converted Lincoln from the policy of Seward to that of Stevens. Hence the former was compelled to break his promise through Judge Campbell, and to assist in the malignant stratagem by which the South Carolinians were constrained to fire on the flag. The diabolical success of the artifice is well
Clement C. Clay (search for this): chapter 6.38
full certainty of which it is in danger of losing a part by the lamented death of Colonel Baldwin. What I here attempt to do, is to give faithfully, in my own language, what I understood Colonel Baldwin to tell me, according to my best comprehension of it. His narration was eminently perspicuous and impressive. It should also be premised, that the Virginia Convention, as a body, was not in favor of secession. It was prevalently under the influence of statesmen of the school known as the Clay-Whig. One of the few original secessionists told me that at first there were but twenty-five members of that opinion, and that they gained no accessions, until they were given them by the usurpations of the Lincoln party. The Convention assembled with a fixed determination to preserve the Union, if forbearance and prudence could do it consistently with the rights of the States. Such, as is well known, were, in the main, Colonel Baldwin's views and purposes. But Mr. Lincoln's inaugural,
C. T. Crittenden (search for this): chapter 6.38
opinion, and that they gained no accessions, until they were given them by the usurpations of the Lincoln party. The Convention assembled with a fixed determination to preserve the Union, if forbearance and prudence could do it consistently with the rights of the States. Such, as is well known, were, in the main, Colonel Baldwin's views and purposes. But Mr. Lincoln's inaugural, with its hints of coercion and usurpation, the utter failure of the Peace-Congress, and the rejection of Mr. Crittenden's overtures, the refusal to hear the commissioners. from Mr. Davis' Government at Montgomery, and the secret arming of the Federal Government for attack, had now produced feverish apprehensions in and out of the Convention. Colonel Baldwin considered Mr. Wm. Ballard Preston, of Montgomery county, as deservedly one of the most influential members of that body. This statesman now began to feel those sentiments, which, soon after, prompted him to move and secure the passage of the resolu
R. L. Dabney (search for this): chapter 6.38
Memoir of a narrative received of Colonel John B. Baldwin, of Staunton, touching the Origin of the war. By Rev. R. L. Dabney, D. D. [The following paper from the able pen of Rev. Dr. R. L. Dabney will be read with deep interest, and will be found to be a valuable contribution to the history of the origin of the war. It may be worth while in this connection to recall the fact that when soon after the capture of Fort Sumter and Mr. Lincoln's proclamation, a prominent Northern politicianRev. Dr. R. L. Dabney will be read with deep interest, and will be found to be a valuable contribution to the history of the origin of the war. It may be worth while in this connection to recall the fact that when soon after the capture of Fort Sumter and Mr. Lincoln's proclamation, a prominent Northern politician wrote Colonel Baldwin to ask: What will the Union men of Virginia do now? he immediately replied: There are now no Union men in Virginia. But those who were Union men will stand to their arms, and make a fight which shall go down in history as an illustration of what a brave people can do in defence of their liberties, after having exhausted every means of pacification. ] In March, 1865, being with the army in Petersburg, Virginia, I had the pleasure of meeting Colonel Baldwin at a small
Jefferson Davis (search for this): chapter 6.38
m by the usurpations of the Lincoln party. The Convention assembled with a fixed determination to preserve the Union, if forbearance and prudence could do it consistently with the rights of the States. Such, as is well known, were, in the main, Colonel Baldwin's views and purposes. But Mr. Lincoln's inaugural, with its hints of coercion and usurpation, the utter failure of the Peace-Congress, and the rejection of Mr. Crittenden's overtures, the refusal to hear the commissioners. from Mr. Davis' Government at Montgomery, and the secret arming of the Federal Government for attack, had now produced feverish apprehensions in and out of the Convention. Colonel Baldwin considered Mr. Wm. Ballard Preston, of Montgomery county, as deservedly one of the most influential members of that body. This statesman now began to feel those sentiments, which, soon after, prompted him to move and secure the passage of the resolution to appoint a formal commission of three ambassadors from the Conv
1 2 3 4 5