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 222 total hits in 56 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Rhode Island (Rhode Island, United States) (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
proposing a new form of government which was to be submitted to the States, and, if ratified by nine of them, should go into effect as between the States so ratifying it. If only nine consented, what was to become of the other four, and what of the plighted faith to a perpetual union? We are not left to speculation with different numbers; the case did actually occur. Eleven States ratified; two refused; what was to be done? The expedient of raising an army to coerce North Carolina and Rhode Island into an acceptance of the Constitution or new form of government seems not to have occurred to any one of that day, and the situation was especially embarrassing because the Thirteenth Article provided that the union should be perpetual, and that no alteration should be made in any of the Articles of Confederation, unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislature of every State. An easy escape from the dilemma was fo
Massachusetts Bay (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
rred their sovereignty, or any part of it, to whom was the transfer made? Not to the people of the United States in the aggregate, for there was no such political body. The articles of confederation in their front declared that each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence; that could only mean the people in their organic character. In like manner the original constitution of Massachusetts declared: The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the Province of Massachusetts Bay do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other to form themselves into a free, sovereign, and independent body politic, or State, by the name of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In the debates of the convention which formed the Constitution, as they are found reported in Elliot's Debates, there is abundant proof that the men who prepared the instrument recognized sovereignty as belonging to the people of the individual States; that there was no purpose to transfer it to the f
Texas (Texas, United States) (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
Whenever it shall appear that the causes are radical and permanent, a separation by equitable arrangement will be preferable to an alliance by constraint among nominal friends, but real enemies. In 1844 the measures taken for the annexation of Texas evoked threats of a dissolution of the Union. The legislature of Massachusetts adopted a resolution declaring that the commonwealth of Massachusetts, faithful to the compact between the people of the United States, according to the plain meaningwhich it was understood by them, is sincerely anxious for its preservation; but that it is determined, as it doubts not the other States are, to submit to undelegated powers in no body of men on earth ; and that the project of the annexation of Texas, unless arrested on the threshold, may tend to drive these States into a dissolution of the Union. The examples cited are sufficient to show that secession was not a new idea in 1861, and that its assertion was not of Southern origin. Before
Illinois (Illinois, United States) (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
n January, 1861, of which the writer of this article was a member, sought diligently to find some basis of adjustment on which a majority of the members representing the three political divisions of the Senate could agree. These divisions were known as the Radicals of the North, the Conservatives of the Middle States, and the Ultras of the South. The venerable Senator of Kentucky, Mr. Crittenden, had offered the resolutions which were referred to the committee. Mr. Douglas, Senator from Illinois, after the failure of the committee to agree upon anything, called the attention of the Senate to the fact that it was not the Southern members, naming particularly Toombs and Davis, who obstructed measures for pacification, but the Northern men, who had objected to everything, and on whom he then called for a statement of what they proposed to do, to which no answer was made. Exulting in the result of their recent election, feeling power and forgetting right, they yet dared not avow the e
New Hampshire (New Hampshire, United States) (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
to transfer the power or only to authorize its use. The usual form of ratification was as in the following examples: The delegates of the people of the State of New Hampshire, in the name and behalf of the people of the State of New Hampshire, etc., and the delegates of the people of Virginia, for and in behalf of the people State of New Hampshire, etc., and the delegates of the people of Virginia, for and in behalf of the people of Virginia, etc., do assent to and ratify the said Constitution for the United States of America. As had been done by Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and South Carolina in ratifying the Constitution, Virginia required certain amendments as a more explicit guarantee against consolidation, and accompanied the proposition with the New Hampshire, and South Carolina in ratifying the Constitution, Virginia required certain amendments as a more explicit guarantee against consolidation, and accompanied the proposition with the following declaration: That the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, etc. For whom were the delegates commissioned to speak? On
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
g themselves. In this connection the distinguished member from Massachusetts remarked: If nine out of thirteen [States] can dissolve the comorganic character. In like manner the original constitution of Massachusetts declared: The people inhabiting the territory formerly called t independent body politic, or State, by the name of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In the debates of the convention which formed the Contution for the United States of America. As had been done by Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and South Carolina in ratifying the Constitutiotes, the reason of which was expressed by an eminent citizen of Massachusetts, who said that the influence of our part of the Union must be de of the Union, the Hon. Josiah Quincy, member of Congress from Massachusetts, said: If this bill passes, it is my deliberate opinion that itf Massachusetts adopted a resolution declaring that the commonwealth of Massachusetts, faithful to the compact between the people of the Unit
Department de Ville de Paris (France) (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
was instituted. Each State decided to exercise that right, and all of the thirteen united to sustain it. Great Britain denied the existence of the asserted right and a long war ensued. After a heavy sacrifice of life and treasure, the treaty of Paris was negotiated in 1783, by which Great Britain recognized the independence of the States separately, not as one body politic, but severally, each one being named in the act of recognition. In the year succeeding the Declaration of Independencet use, all else being reserved to the States separately. Under these Articles of Confederation the war of the Revolution was conducted. In the face of the Declaration of Independence, and of the Articles of Confederation, and of the treaty of Paris, he who denies that in 1783 each State was a sovereign, free, and independent community must have much hardihood or little historical knowledge. After the independence had been gained, for which so much was risked and no little lost, when the
Louisiana (Louisiana, United States) (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
ugh not expressed, the existence of the right was often asserted and rarely, if ever, denied anterior to 1861. It cannot be said that it was then for the first time formally asserted and therefore for the first time denied. The acquisition of Louisiana in 1803 created much dissatisfaction in the New England States, the reason of which was expressed by an eminent citizen of Massachusetts, who said that the influence of our part of the Union must be diminished by the acquisition of more weight at the other extremity. （Life of Cabot, by Lodge, p. 334.) In 1811, on the bill for the admission of Louisiana as a State of the Union, the Hon. Josiah Quincy, member of Congress from Massachusetts, said: If this bill passes, it is my deliberate opinion that it is virtually a dissolution of this Union; that it will free the States from their moral obligation; and as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some, definitely to prepare for a separation— amicably if they can, vio
Georgia (Georgia, United States) (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
of the federal government, and adds: Of this great sum annually furnished by them, nothing, or next to nothing, is returned to them in the shape of government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction—it flows northwardly in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up from the North. Federal legislation does all this. . . . No tariff has ever yet included Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, except to increase the burdens imposed upon them. It has, in modern times, been asserted by some in high position, if not of high authority, that the will of the majority was the law of the land. Not so thought the men who formed the Constitution. They sought through every conceivable device to protect minorities from the despotism which majorities are ever prone to inflict, and I must insist that while each State retained its sovereignty it had a shield against the despotism of a ma
England (United Kingdom) (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
hese united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States. Therefore these, like other British colonies in America, were dependencies of Great Britain; and to justify their declaration of independence, a formidable arraignment of the King for his violation of their mutual obligations and rights was submitted rnment when it ceased to answer the ends for which it was instituted. Each State decided to exercise that right, and all of the thirteen united to sustain it. Great Britain denied the existence of the asserted right and a long war ensued. After a heavy sacrifice of life and treasure, the treaty of Paris was negotiated in 1783, by which Great Britain recognized the independence of the States separately, not as one body politic, but severally, each one being named in the act of recognition. In the year succeeding the Declaration of Independence—i. e., 1777—the thirteen States by which it had been made sent delegates to a general congress, and they agreed
1 2 3 4 5 6