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
Robert E. Lee 523 9 Browse Search
United States (United States) 340 0 Browse Search
Joe Hooker 254 0 Browse Search
Fitzhugh Lee 216 2 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 195 7 Browse Search
Stonewall Jackson 182 0 Browse Search
George B. McClellan 170 0 Browse Search
Sedgwick 168 2 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 160 0 Browse Search
J. A. Early 149 5 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 14. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 288 total hits in 68 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
1798 AD (search for this): chapter 14
upon as amounting in substance to a denial of the right of secession on the part of any State for any cause whatever. This was the view taken generally by the old Federalists and the extreme advocates of State Rights, but the President afterwards maintained that an erroneous construction had been put upon those parts of the proclamation referred to, and in a full explanation he declared his adherence to the principles of Mr. Jefferson as set forth in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798 and 1799. The practical question then was and may hereafter again be, how and by what methods should this indefeasible right of resistance be exercised? Shall it be by armed force within the Union? which would be civil war; or should it be by withdrawing from the Union? The position taken in the Proclamation, that a resisting State could not retain its place in the Union, would seem to indicate very clearly that General Jackson regarded secession as the only proper remedy. Later exper
1799 AD (search for this): chapter 14
amounting in substance to a denial of the right of secession on the part of any State for any cause whatever. This was the view taken generally by the old Federalists and the extreme advocates of State Rights, but the President afterwards maintained that an erroneous construction had been put upon those parts of the proclamation referred to, and in a full explanation he declared his adherence to the principles of Mr. Jefferson as set forth in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798 and 1799. The practical question then was and may hereafter again be, how and by what methods should this indefeasible right of resistance be exercised? Shall it be by armed force within the Union? which would be civil war; or should it be by withdrawing from the Union? The position taken in the Proclamation, that a resisting State could not retain its place in the Union, would seem to indicate very clearly that General Jackson regarded secession as the only proper remedy. Later experience has
1812 AD (search for this): chapter 14
inguished himself in any case of importance. * * He would undoubtedly never have become a great lawyer, because he was not objective enough to examine his premises with sufficient care, etc. Page 16, speaking of Calhoun's advocacy of the war of 1812, he says: So the first act of Calhoun on the national stage was to sound the war trumpet. Henceforth incessant war, war to the bitter end, was to be his destiny to the last day of his life; though it was in later years to be waged, not against a foreign aggressor, but against internal adversaries, against the peace of the Union, against the true welfare of his own section of the country Page 26, this calumny is repeated by a negative pregnant, when he says: At this time (war of 1812), Calhoun did not seek the satisfaction of his personal ambition at the expense of the Union; thereby seeking to make the impression that at another time he did. Page 33, he speaks of Calhoun (interrogatively, it is true,) as a young zealot, who did n
1828 AD (search for this): chapter 14
ter. Dr. von Holst's disingenuous effort to make it appear that Calhoun rested his defence on the avowals of Lord Aberdeen, and not on the state of things, and that Calhoun, therefore, lied, because the facts were known before the avowals were made, is a malus-puer-ility which, if admissible in the heat and passion of an active canvass against a live candidate for office, would even then admit of but one defence, that want of decency is want of sense. Speaking of the Tariff controversy of 1828-32, Dr. von Holst says (page 98): South Carolina received the new tariff as a declaration that the protective system was the settled policy of the country, and on August 28, 1832, Calhoun issued his third manifest (his letter to Governor Hamilton), determined to have the die cast without delay. * * Thirty years later, the programme laid down in it was carried out, piece by piece, and the justification of the Southern course was based, point by point, upon this argument. Now let us see
April 13th, 1830 AD (search for this): chapter 14
ry of those times, can read the letter to General Hamilton without recognizing and admitting that next after combatting the secession programme, its chief object was delay—to allow time for further consideration and reflection. On page 82, von Holst himself seems to have been aware of this, for he there quotes these very words of Calhoun. The truth is, that Calhoun was fighting the secession programme in the only way in which it could then be fought successfully. Two years before, 13th April, 1830, Jackson had given his celebrated volunteer toast at the celebration of Jefferson's birthday: Our Federal Union; it must be preserved. But it was well understood then that this was aimed at nullification, not at secession. If Jackson ever denied the right of secession, his denunciation fell far short of the more emphatic language of Calhoun. In his celebrated proclamation against the South Carolina Nullification Ordinance, he admitted that the right of resisting unconstitutional acts
1831 AD (search for this): chapter 14
, most watchful and inflexible opponent of the Higher Law, which subordinated the Constitution and the Union to their wills or convictions. For twenty years, from 1831 to 1850, he was first among those who guarded the temple of his idol—the Union as ordained by the Constitution—against the incendiarism of those Erostrati. For te), would be, I would say, had I not great respect for many who do thus apply it, egregious trifling with a grave and deeply important constitutional subject. In 1831-2 the protective system had been pushed to such extremes as to produce an almost universal sentiment in the staple or slaveholding states, that the Union, establisnullification as advocated by Calhoun; this its utmost extent; no more. Such were the arguments by which he sought to dissuade the staple States from secession in 1831-32. His impure idol was the Union, as ordained by the Constitution; his unholy cause the preservation of that Union as our fathers framed it. The distinctive f
July 26th, 1831 AD (search for this): chapter 14
ies, but also the means, and the only effectual one, of securing to us justice, peace, and security, at home and abroad, and with them that national power and renown, the love of which Providence has implanted, for wise purposes, so deeply in the human heart, in all of which great objects every part of our country, widely extended and diversified as it is, has a common and identical interest. Is not this single sentence, taken from Calhoun's address to the people of South Carolina, July 26th, 1831, a complete refutation of all that Dr. von Holst has scattered through his book about Calhoun's sectionalism. Of the fifty millions now living in the United States few know what was meant by nullification, or have any idea of it, except as derived from the misrepresentations of such writers as von Holst. Calhoun, though not its originator, was its ablest exponent. Explaining it, he said: So far from extreme danger, I hold that there never was a free State in which this great con
1832 AD (search for this): chapter 14
ld even then admit of but one defence, that want of decency is want of sense. Speaking of the Tariff controversy of 1828-32, Dr. von Holst says (page 98): South Carolina received the new tariff as a declaration that the protective system was th statesmanlike and patriotic method of exercising the indefeasible right of resistance to unconstitutional acts. But in 1832 the right of secession was almost as universally admitted as that the constitution recognized slavery as a fact which the pect for many who do thus apply it, egregious trifling with a grave and deeply important constitutional subject. In 1831-2 the protective system had been pushed to such extremes as to produce an almost universal sentiment in the staple or slavehots utmost extent; no more. Such were the arguments by which he sought to dissuade the staple States from secession in 1831-32. His impure idol was the Union, as ordained by the Constitution; his unholy cause the preservation of that Union as our fa
August 28th, 1832 AD (search for this): chapter 14
erefore, lied, because the facts were known before the avowals were made, is a malus-puer-ility which, if admissible in the heat and passion of an active canvass against a live candidate for office, would even then admit of but one defence, that want of decency is want of sense. Speaking of the Tariff controversy of 1828-32, Dr. von Holst says (page 98): South Carolina received the new tariff as a declaration that the protective system was the settled policy of the country, and on August 28, 1832, Calhoun issued his third manifest (his letter to Governor Hamilton), determined to have the die cast without delay. * * Thirty years later, the programme laid down in it was carried out, piece by piece, and the justification of the Southern course was based, point by point, upon this argument. Now let us see if all of the last sentence, and so much of the first, as imputes to Calhoun a determination to have the die cast without delay, are not misrepresentations, which leave Dr. von
May 23rd, 1836 AD (search for this): chapter 14
measures they have. They remained passive so long as the policy on the part of Great Britain, which has led to its adoption, had no immediate bearing on their peace and safety. Dr. von Holst's comment on this is as follows: It may not be correct to apply, without modification, the code of private ethics to politics; but, however flexible political morality be, a lie is a lie, and Calhoun knew that there was not a particle of truth in these assertions. Almost eight years before, on May 23, 1836, as we have seen, he himself declared annexation to be necessary, and the first and foremost reason that he alleged for it was the interest which the Southern States had in it, on account of their peculiar institution. Two years later, his colleague, Mr. Preston, had moved in the Senate, and Mr. Thompson, of South Carolina, had also moved in the House of Representatives, to declare annexation expedient. Several State Legislatures, as those of Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee, had agit
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...