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
John H. Morgan 129 5 Browse Search
Fitz Lee 128 8 Browse Search
Stonewall Jackson 124 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 122 0 Browse Search
James 117 5 Browse Search
Robert Edward Lee 86 18 Browse Search
Tecumseh Sherman 80 0 Browse Search
Douglass (Nevada, United States) 80 0 Browse Search
Tom Jackson 78 0 Browse Search
U. S. Grant 77 1 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 35. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 79 total hits in 35 results.

1 2 3 4
Richmond (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.48
Constitutional Right, Previous to the War of 1861? By Albert Taylor Bledsoe, A. M., L. L. D., late professor of mathematics in the University of Virginia. Republished by Mary Barksdale Newton, in memory of her husband, Virginius Newton, of Richmond, Va. The Hermitage Press, Inc., 1907, Richmond, Va. As expressed in its preface: It is not the design of this book to open the subject of secession (but merely to discuss that subject from the standpoint of abstract right), in order to vindiRichmond, Va. As expressed in its preface: It is not the design of this book to open the subject of secession (but merely to discuss that subject from the standpoint of abstract right), in order to vindicate the character of the South for loyalty, and to wipe off the charges of treason and rebellion from the names and memories of Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson, Albert Sydney Johnston, Robert E. Lee and all who fought and suffered in the great war of coercion. The recent Confederate Reunion at Richmond; Va., where gathered once again the survivors of the historic struggle of 1861-5, makes timely the republication of the work under review; and, as a valuable contribution to the history of
Louisa Court House (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.48
The right of secession—a Review of Bledsoe's able work. From the Times-dispatch, October 20-27, 1907. An Epitome of the views of Webster, Calhoun and other famous statesmen. By Frederick Wilmer Sims, Louisa, Va. Is Davis a Traitor, or Was Secession a Constitutional Right, Previous to the War of 1861? By Albert Taylor Bledsoe, A. M., L. L. D., late professor of mathematics in the University of Virginia. Republished by Mary Barksdale Newton, in memory of her husband, Virginius Newton, of Richmond, Va. The Hermitage Press, Inc., 1907, Richmond, Va. As expressed in its preface: It is not the design of this book to open the subject of secession (but merely to discuss that subject from the standpoint of abstract right), in order to vindicate the character of the South for loyalty, and to wipe off the charges of treason and rebellion from the names and memories of Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson, Albert Sydney Johnston, Robert E. Lee and all who fought and suffered in
nance of ratification of the Federal Constitution, expressly reserved the right to resume the powers delegated to the Federal Government, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression. The idea of the individual citizen having surrendered, absolutely, certain natural rights, in order that civil society or government might be formed, under the theory of the original contract, the social contract, the social compact, or the implied social compact, discussed by numerous European writers, —some treating such contract or compact as having been in fact made, some as wholly imaginary and some as implied,— was familiar to the framers of our Federal Constitution. But the conception that a sovereign State could make such surrender, absolutely, of certain sovereign rights, in order to form civil society or government, was, at the time of the formation and adoption of our Federal Constitution, wholly new. Pelatiah Webster, in 1783, first expressed the idea that a Feder
Scotland (United Kingdom) (search for this): chapter 1.48
n accordance with the Constitution. The South, in asserting her independence and resisting coercion, found moral support in the same conviction, and the patriotism of those who fought for the Union was neither purer nor more ardent than the patriotism of those who fought for States' rights. Long ago, a Parliament of that nation to which Jackson and so many of his compatriots owed their origin, made petition to the Pope that he should require the English King to respect the independence of Scotland, and mind his own affairs. So long as 100 of us are left alive, said the signatories, we will never in any degree be subjected to the English. It is not for glory, or for riches, or for honor that we fight, but for liberty alone, which no good man loses but with his life. More than 500 years later, for the same noble cause and in the same uncompromising spirit, the people of Virginia made appeal to the God of Battles. The whole of this admirable summary, by an impartial historian, is
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.48
ere was, indeed, up to the very commencement of hostilities, no settled conviction on this subject, even in the North, contrary to the historic view of it, which prevailed almost unanimously in the South. As Mr. Henderson, in his most admirable work (Stonewall Jackson, Vol. I., page 117), says: Mr. Lincoln's predecessor in the presidential chair had publicly proclaimed that coercion was both illegal and inexpedient; and for the three months which intervened between the secession of South Carolina and the inauguration of the Republican President, the Government made not the slightest attempt to interfere with the peaceable establishment of the new Confederacy. Nota single soldier reinforced the garrisons of the military posts in the South. Not a single regiment was recalled from the Western frontiers, and the seceded States, without a word of protest, were permitted to take possession, with few exceptions, of the forts, arsenals, navy yards and custom-houses which stood in their
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 1.48
played in this work. Preamble to the Constitution. The history of the authorship of the initial clause of our Federal Constitution, We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of Ameica; and of the writing of it by Gouverneur United States of Ameica; and of the writing of it by Gouverneur Morris, the draftsman of the committee on style; and of its adoption by the whole convention in absolute silence, is peculiarly instructive and interesting reading. In this connection will be remembered Mr. Calhoun's suggestion, in his debate with Mr. Webster in 1833, that this phraseology—We, the people, etc.—was used as expres sovereign States, acting for themselves and for the people of the several States, respectively; and that such Constitution was not formed by the people of the United States as a whole, acting individually and nationally, with respect to the nationel powers delegated. It will be remembered that Mr. Calhoun brought all the weight
Switzerland (Switzerland) (search for this): chapter 1.48
structed upon a single plan, at once clumsy and inefficient. The most perfect of the Greek Leagues was the Achaian, of which the founders realy knew nothing . . . The only Federal Governments with whose internal organizations the builders of the Federal Republic were really familiar, and whose histories had any practical effect upon their work, were those which had grown up between the Low-Dutch communities, at the mouth of the Rhine, and the High-Dutch communities in the mountains of Switzerland and upon the plains of Germany. Down to the making of our present Federal Constitution, the confederation of Swiss Cantons, the United Provinces of the Netherlands, and the German Confederation, really represented the total advance made by the modern world in the structure of Federal Governments. Such advance was embodied in the idea of a Federal system made up of a union of States, cities, or districts, representatives from which composed a single Federal Assembly, whose supreme power
Dutch (West Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.48
es, all Federal Governments have been constructed upon a single plan, at once clumsy and inefficient. The most perfect of the Greek Leagues was the Achaian, of which the founders realy knew nothing . . . The only Federal Governments with whose internal organizations the builders of the Federal Republic were really familiar, and whose histories had any practical effect upon their work, were those which had grown up between the Low-Dutch communities, at the mouth of the Rhine, and the High-Dutch communities in the mountains of Switzerland and upon the plains of Germany. Down to the making of our present Federal Constitution, the confederation of Swiss Cantons, the United Provinces of the Netherlands, and the German Confederation, really represented the total advance made by the modern world in the structure of Federal Governments. Such advance was embodied in the idea of a Federal system made up of a union of States, cities, or districts, representatives from which composed a sing
dent in history, and the basic principle upon which it rests being that of the possibility of a divided sovereignty—a thing therefore by all and since by many, deemed an impossibility — the Federal Government to be supreme with respect to certain—sovereign powers delegated to it and surrendered by the States; and the State Governments, or the people thereunder, to remain sovereign and supreme with respect to certain powers not delegated to the States, or to the people thereof—it needed no Cassandra to foretell that long years of debate, and, perchance, the trial by wage of battle, would be needed to define and fix the resultant effect of so momentous an innovation in matters of government. And this indeed has come to pass. Was the delegation and surrender by the States of a portion of their sovereign power to the Federal Government absolute—irrevocable? Upon this pivotal question the decision turned. That it was not so intended by the framers of the Federal Constitution,
Noah Webster (search for this): chapter 1.48
d make such surrender, absolutely, of certain sovereign rights, in order to form civil society or government, was, at the time of the formation and adoption of our Federal Constitution, wholly new. Pelatiah Webster, in 1783, first expressed the idea that a Federal Government could be formed that should act, not on the States, but directly on individuals. (To him Dr. Bledsoe refers in note on page 52 of the work under review, but inadvertently gives the credit of the idea mentioned to Noah Webster.) The former, it is true, conceived the idea of the possibility of a divided sovereignty; but even by him, the idea that the States could surrender, absolutely, certain sovereign rights—as individuals might surrender certain natural rights—seems not to have been clearly defined. He saw as but through a glass, darkly on this subject. In truth neither he nor any of his contemporaries had any aid toward reaching the conclusion that a divided sovereignty might be made absolute, from any his
1 2 3 4