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) 640 0 Browse Search
Chattanooga (Tennessee, United States) 443 19 Browse Search
W. T. Sherman 321 3 Browse Search
Mobile Bay (Alabama, United States) 296 8 Browse Search
Doc 290 0 Browse Search
Knoxville (Tennessee, United States) 278 8 Browse Search
N. P. Banks 276 0 Browse Search
U. S. Grant 267 3 Browse Search
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) 256 0 Browse Search
N. B. Forrest 240 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 8. (ed. Frank Moore). Search the whole document.

Found 238 total hits in 125 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
1688 AD (search for this): chapter 85
t. Just, in his report to the Convention of France, 1793, said: A people has but one dangerous enemy, and that is government. We adopted no such absurdity. In nearly every instance, the first steps were taken legally, in accordance with the will and prescribed direction of the constituted authorities of the seceding States. We were not remitted to brute force or natural law, or the instincts of reason. The charters of freedom were scrupulously preserved. As in the English Revolution of 1688, and ours of 1776, there was no material alteration in the laws beyond what was necessary to redress the abuses that provoked the struggle. No attempt was made to build on speculative principles. The effort was confined within the narrowest limits of historical and constitutional right. The controversy turned on the records and muniments of the past. We merely resisted innovation and tyranny, and contended for our birth-rights and the covenanted principles of our race. We have had our Go
1775 AD (search for this): chapter 85
ted proclamation, a mere brutem fulmen, liberating the slaves in the insurrectionary districts. On the twenty-fourth June, 1776, one of the reasons assigned by Pennsylvania for her separation from the mother country was that, in her sister colonies, the King had excited the negroes to revolt and to imbue their hands in the blood of their masters, in a manner unpractised by civilized nations. This, probably had reference to the proclamation of Dunmore, the last royal Governor of Virginia, in 1775, declaring freedom to all servants or negroes, if they would join for the reducing the colony to a proper sense of its duty. The invitation to the slaves to rise against their masters, the suggested insurrection, caused, says Bancroft, a thrill of indignation to run through Virginia, effacing all differences of party, and rousing one strong, impassioned purpose to drive away the insolent power by which it had been put forth. A contemporary annalist, adverting to the same proclamation, sai
1776 AD (search for this): chapter 85
port to the Convention of France, 1793, said: A people has but one dangerous enemy, and that is government. We adopted no such absurdity. In nearly every instance, the first steps were taken legally, in accordance with the will and prescribed direction of the constituted authorities of the seceding States. We were not remitted to brute force or natural law, or the instincts of reason. The charters of freedom were scrupulously preserved. As in the English Revolution of 1688, and ours of 1776, there was no material alteration in the laws beyond what was necessary to redress the abuses that provoked the struggle. No attempt was made to build on speculative principles. The effort was confined within the narrowest limits of historical and constitutional right. The controversy turned on the records and muniments of the past. We merely resisted innovation and tyranny, and contended for our birth-rights and the covenanted principles of our race. We have had our Governors, General A
June 24th, 1776 AD (search for this): chapter 85
ms, the Minister to Great Britain, on tenth March, 1862, said: If the Government of the United States should precipitately decree the immediate abolition of slavery, it would reinvigorate the declining insurrection in every part of the South. Subsequent reverses and the refractory rebelliousness of the seceded States caused a change of policy, and Mr. Lincoln issued his celebrated proclamation, a mere brutem fulmen, liberating the slaves in the insurrectionary districts. On the twenty-fourth June, 1776, one of the reasons assigned by Pennsylvania for her separation from the mother country was that, in her sister colonies, the King had excited the negroes to revolt and to imbue their hands in the blood of their masters, in a manner unpractised by civilized nations. This, probably had reference to the proclamation of Dunmore, the last royal Governor of Virginia, in 1775, declaring freedom to all servants or negroes, if they would join for the reducing the colony to a proper sense o
1793 AD (search for this): chapter 85
ead of sedition, of right instead of violence, of deliberation instead of insurrection. Its early life was attended by no anarchy, no rebellion, no suspension of authority, no social disorders, no lawless disturbances. Sovereignty was not for one moment in abeyance. The utmost conservatism marked every proceeding and public act. The object was to do what was necessary, and no more; and to do that with the utmost temperance and prudence. St. Just, in his report to the Convention of France, 1793, said: A people has but one dangerous enemy, and that is government. We adopted no such absurdity. In nearly every instance, the first steps were taken legally, in accordance with the will and prescribed direction of the constituted authorities of the seceding States. We were not remitted to brute force or natural law, or the instincts of reason. The charters of freedom were scrupulously preserved. As in the English Revolution of 1688, and ours of 1776, there was no material alteration
1814 AD (search for this): chapter 85
or them, as such, they have repeatedly received compensation from England. Napoleon I. was never induced to issue a proclamation for the emancipation of the serfs in his war with Russia. He said: I could have armed against her a part of her population, by proclaiming the liberty of the serfs. A great number of villages asked it of me, but I refused to avail myself of a measure which would have devoted to death thousands of families. In the discussions growing out of the treaty of peace of 1814, and the proffered mediation of Russia, the principle was maintained by the United States that the emancipation of enemy's slaves is not among the acts of legitimate warfare. In the instructions from John Quincy Adams, as Secretary of State, to Mr: Middleton, at Saint Petersburgh, October eighteenth, 1820, it is said: The British have broadly asserted the right of emancipating slaves (private property) as a legitimate right of war. No such right is acknowledged as a law of war by writers w
October 18th, 1820 AD (search for this): chapter 85
reat number of villages asked it of me, but I refused to avail myself of a measure which would have devoted to death thousands of families. In the discussions growing out of the treaty of peace of 1814, and the proffered mediation of Russia, the principle was maintained by the United States that the emancipation of enemy's slaves is not among the acts of legitimate warfare. In the instructions from John Quincy Adams, as Secretary of State, to Mr: Middleton, at Saint Petersburgh, October eighteenth, 1820, it is said: The British have broadly asserted the right of emancipating slaves (private property) as a legitimate right of war. No such right is acknowledged as a law of war by writers who admit any limitation. The right of putting to death all prisoners in cold blood, and without special cause, might as well be pretended to be a law of war, or the right to use poisoned weapons, or to assassinate. Disregarding the teachings of the approved writers on international law and the p
March 10th, 1862 AD (search for this): chapter 85
e enemy have been exceeded by their malicious and blood-thirsty purpose and machinations in reference to the slaves. Early in this war, President Lincoln averred his constitutional inability and personal unwillingness to interfere with the domestic institutions of the States and the relation between master and servant. Prudential considerations may have been veiled under conscientious scruples. Mr. Seward, in a confidential instruction to Mr. Adams, the Minister to Great Britain, on tenth March, 1862, said: If the Government of the United States should precipitately decree the immediate abolition of slavery, it would reinvigorate the declining insurrection in every part of the South. Subsequent reverses and the refractory rebelliousness of the seceded States caused a change of policy, and Mr. Lincoln issued his celebrated proclamation, a mere brutem fulmen, liberating the slaves in the insurrectionary districts. On the twenty-fourth June, 1776, one of the reasons assigned by Pen
February 26th, 1864 AD (search for this): chapter 85
Doc. 83.-address of the rebel Congress to the people of the confederate States. February 26, 1864. In closing the labors of the first permanent Congress, your representatives deem it a fit occasion to give some account of their stewardship; to review briefly what, under such embarrassments and adverse circumstances, has been accomplished; to invite attention to the prospect before us, and the duties incumbent on every citizen in this crisis; and to address such words of counsel and encouragement as the times demand. Compelled by a long series of oppressive and tyrannical acts, culminating at last in the selection of a President and Vice-President by a party confessedly sectional and hostile to the South and her institutions, these States withdrew from the former Union, and formed a new confederate alliance, as an independent government, based on the proper relations of labor and capital. This step was taken reluctantly, by constraint, and after the exhaustion of every
John Quincy Adams (search for this): chapter 85
nal unwillingness to interfere with the domestic institutions of the States and the relation between master and servant. Prudential considerations may have been veiled under conscientious scruples. Mr. Seward, in a confidential instruction to Mr. Adams, the Minister to Great Britain, on tenth March, 1862, said: If the Government of the United States should precipitately decree the immediate abolition of slavery, it would reinvigorate the declining insurrection in every part of the South. Sng out of the treaty of peace of 1814, and the proffered mediation of Russia, the principle was maintained by the United States that the emancipation of enemy's slaves is not among the acts of legitimate warfare. In the instructions from John Quincy Adams, as Secretary of State, to Mr: Middleton, at Saint Petersburgh, October eighteenth, 1820, it is said: The British have broadly asserted the right of emancipating slaves (private property) as a legitimate right of war. No such right is ackno
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...