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) 16,340 0 Browse Search
England (United Kingdom) 6,437 1 Browse Search
France (France) 2,462 0 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 2,310 0 Browse Search
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) 1,788 0 Browse Search
Europe 1,632 0 Browse Search
New England (United States) 1,606 0 Browse Search
Canada (Canada) 1,474 0 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 1,468 0 Browse Search
Mexico (Mexico, Mexico) 1,404 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History (ed. Benson Lossing). Search the whole document.

Found 110 total hits in 57 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Nevada (Nevada, United States) (search for this): entry 5710
otes of ten States, without regard to the popular pluralities of those States. In fact, in 1884, 600 votes taken from the Democratic candidate and given to the Republican would have put New York in the Republican column. It may, then, be said that 600 voters in New York gave that State to Cleveland. These 600 votes outbalanced the electoral votes of eight States, with pluralities aggregating 110,000, and an electoral vote of thirty-three. These States were: Colorado, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont. The fact is thus demonstrated that, in each State, the individual voter's elective power is augmented or curtailed by a law which does not recognize the individual as a potential factor in a national election. To remedy this inequality, the bishop suggests that Presidential electors be voted for separately by congressional districts, instead of by a State ballot; each elector being chosen by the congressional district in which he resides, ir
Harrisburg, Pa. (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): entry 5710
ar, also, the congressional caucus became a fixture; and, until 1824, all Presidential candidates were nominated by such caucus. In 1824, the people obtaining full control of State and local government, the State legislatures and State conventions began to make nominations, depriving the congressional caucus of its power. At this time, also, the people began to select electors by ballot. The new method of nominating did not give entire satisfaction, and the meeting of protectionists in Harrisburg, in 1827, and of anti-masons in Baltimore, in 1831, paved the way to the popular national convention with such success that, in 1832, the Democrats and National Republicans adopted the national caucus for the nomination of candidates. The caucus, however, was a crude instrument and fell into disuse. In 1840, the national convention, nearly as we now know it, was created, and all Presidents elected since that time have been nominated by national conventions of the nominating parties. W
Minnesota (Minnesota, United States) (search for this): entry 5710
row the electoral votes of ten States, without regard to the popular pluralities of those States. In fact, in 1884, 600 votes taken from the Democratic candidate and given to the Republican would have put New York in the Republican column. It may, then, be said that 600 voters in New York gave that State to Cleveland. These 600 votes outbalanced the electoral votes of eight States, with pluralities aggregating 110,000, and an electoral vote of thirty-three. These States were: Colorado, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont. The fact is thus demonstrated that, in each State, the individual voter's elective power is augmented or curtailed by a law which does not recognize the individual as a potential factor in a national election. To remedy this inequality, the bishop suggests that Presidential electors be voted for separately by congressional districts, instead of by a State ballot; each elector being chosen by the congressional district in
Rhode Island (Rhode Island, United States) (search for this): entry 5710
to the popular pluralities of those States. In fact, in 1884, 600 votes taken from the Democratic candidate and given to the Republican would have put New York in the Republican column. It may, then, be said that 600 voters in New York gave that State to Cleveland. These 600 votes outbalanced the electoral votes of eight States, with pluralities aggregating 110,000, and an electoral vote of thirty-three. These States were: Colorado, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont. The fact is thus demonstrated that, in each State, the individual voter's elective power is augmented or curtailed by a law which does not recognize the individual as a potential factor in a national election. To remedy this inequality, the bishop suggests that Presidential electors be voted for separately by congressional districts, instead of by a State ballot; each elector being chosen by the congressional district in which he resides, irrespective of the candidacy or the
New Hampshire (New Hampshire, United States) (search for this): entry 5710
States, without regard to the popular pluralities of those States. In fact, in 1884, 600 votes taken from the Democratic candidate and given to the Republican would have put New York in the Republican column. It may, then, be said that 600 voters in New York gave that State to Cleveland. These 600 votes outbalanced the electoral votes of eight States, with pluralities aggregating 110,000, and an electoral vote of thirty-three. These States were: Colorado, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont. The fact is thus demonstrated that, in each State, the individual voter's elective power is augmented or curtailed by a law which does not recognize the individual as a potential factor in a national election. To remedy this inequality, the bishop suggests that Presidential electors be voted for separately by congressional districts, instead of by a State ballot; each elector being chosen by the congressional district in which he resides, irrespective
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): entry 5710
States, the, and the popular vote in Presidential elections .—Mr. John Handiboe, a member of the staff of a leading Philadelphia journal, which he joined after a long and brilliant editorial career in the capital of Pennsylvania, the exigencies of whose work have rendered it necessary for him to make a special study of certain provisions and regulations of the Constitution, as illustrated by the result of their operation in connection with practical affairs, writes as follows: One of the most interesting problems which have confronted the American political student during the past twenty years is: Shall the President of the United States be elected by direct popular vote? Custom and tradition, the arch enemies of reform, oppose the innovation, and deceive the public mind with the error-preserving assertion that what was good enough for our fathers is good enough for us. Few things that were good enough for our fathers are now worthy to remain in actual use; for, as evolutio
Colorado (Colorado, United States) (search for this): entry 5710
ould overthrow the electoral votes of ten States, without regard to the popular pluralities of those States. In fact, in 1884, 600 votes taken from the Democratic candidate and given to the Republican would have put New York in the Republican column. It may, then, be said that 600 voters in New York gave that State to Cleveland. These 600 votes outbalanced the electoral votes of eight States, with pluralities aggregating 110,000, and an electoral vote of thirty-three. These States were: Colorado, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont. The fact is thus demonstrated that, in each State, the individual voter's elective power is augmented or curtailed by a law which does not recognize the individual as a potential factor in a national election. To remedy this inequality, the bishop suggests that Presidential electors be voted for separately by congressional districts, instead of by a State ballot; each elector being chosen by the congressional di
Cleveland (Ohio, United States) (search for this): entry 5710
rty. The illustration applies with the same force to 100 voters, or to 1,000, as to one. Indeed, the bishop could have gone further, and said that 100 voters in New York could overthrow the electoral votes of ten States, without regard to the popular pluralities of those States. In fact, in 1884, 600 votes taken from the Democratic candidate and given to the Republican would have put New York in the Republican column. It may, then, be said that 600 voters in New York gave that State to Cleveland. These 600 votes outbalanced the electoral votes of eight States, with pluralities aggregating 110,000, and an electoral vote of thirty-three. These States were: Colorado, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont. The fact is thus demonstrated that, in each State, the individual voter's elective power is augmented or curtailed by a law which does not recognize the individual as a potential factor in a national election. To remedy this inequality, the
Baltimore, Md. (Maryland, United States) (search for this): entry 5710
fixture; and, until 1824, all Presidential candidates were nominated by such caucus. In 1824, the people obtaining full control of State and local government, the State legislatures and State conventions began to make nominations, depriving the congressional caucus of its power. At this time, also, the people began to select electors by ballot. The new method of nominating did not give entire satisfaction, and the meeting of protectionists in Harrisburg, in 1827, and of anti-masons in Baltimore, in 1831, paved the way to the popular national convention with such success that, in 1832, the Democrats and National Republicans adopted the national caucus for the nomination of candidates. The caucus, however, was a crude instrument and fell into disuse. In 1840, the national convention, nearly as we now know it, was created, and all Presidents elected since that time have been nominated by national conventions of the nominating parties. We have seen, therefore, these successive m
Vermont (Vermont, United States) (search for this): entry 5710
lar pluralities of those States. In fact, in 1884, 600 votes taken from the Democratic candidate and given to the Republican would have put New York in the Republican column. It may, then, be said that 600 voters in New York gave that State to Cleveland. These 600 votes outbalanced the electoral votes of eight States, with pluralities aggregating 110,000, and an electoral vote of thirty-three. These States were: Colorado, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont. The fact is thus demonstrated that, in each State, the individual voter's elective power is augmented or curtailed by a law which does not recognize the individual as a potential factor in a national election. To remedy this inequality, the bishop suggests that Presidential electors be voted for separately by congressional districts, instead of by a State ballot; each elector being chosen by the congressional district in which he resides, irrespective of the candidacy or the political
1 2 3 4 5 6