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 7
Calhoun, Ga. (Georgia, United States) (search for this): chapter 14
t, Calhoun. 3. That next after demolishing Calhoun's great reputation for statesmanship, the chiwith a good deal of stage thunder, to display Calhoun's impure idol and unholy cause with tragic efsufficient care, etc. Page 16, speaking of Calhoun's advocacy of the war of 1812, he says: So though his giddy brain. Page 57, speaking of Calhoun's admirers, he uses the qualifying adjective he fishwoman. But on page 233, speaking of Calhoun's dispatch to Pakenham of 18th April, 1844, hing rests. The following is the extract from Calhoun's dispatch to Pakenham, quoted by von Holst. of the Constitutional compact was correct and Calhoun's wrong. But to answer Calhoun's argument, tCalhoun's argument, thirty years after his death, by calling him a liar — will that meet the approval of cultured New En. Is not this single sentence, taken from Calhoun's address to the people of South Carolina, Juon Holst has scattered through his book about Calhoun's sectionalism. Of the fifty millions now [2 more...]
Dalton, Ga. (Georgia, United States) (search for this): chapter 14
Calhoun—Nullification explained. by Colonel Benjamin E. Green, of Dalton, Ga. During Mr. Buchanan's administration, before the slave-holding States proposed to withdraw peaceably, rather than wait to be expelled from the confederation, a State Disunion Convention met at Worcester, Massachusetts. It was composed of men who subsequently became the controlling element of the party which elected Mr. Lincoln President and abolished slavery by force of arms. They adopted the following platform: Resolved, That the meeting of a State Disunion Convention, attended by men of various parties and affinities, gives occasion for a new statement of principles and a new platform of action. Resolved, That the cardinal American principle is now, as always, liberty, while the prominent fact is now, as always, slavery. Resolved, That the conflict between this principle of liberty and this fact of slavery has been the whole history of the nation for fifty years, while the only result of th
England (United Kingdom) (search for this): chapter 14
fense, the obligation of adopting the 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 thio a constant menace to the trade of the whole Mississippi valley. Mexico was too weak to prevent a strong power like Great Britain seizing Texas as a point d'appui, from which to attack New Orleans and annihilate the commerce of that great emporiumeemed desirable by many American statesmen, including at one time even J. Q. Adams himself. In 1843 another war with Great Britain had become not improbable, in view of the Oregon and other complications. Therefore, to our citizens in distant Oregen successful in the objects of his mission to Texas; that is to say, in securing Texas as a commercial dependency of Great Britain, in abolishing slavery in Texas, and in building up on our Southwestern border another Canada. (See speech of Senato
Alabama (Alabama, United States) (search for this): chapter 14
n. 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 agitated the question with hot zeal, unreservedly avowing that they did so upon grounds somewhat local in their complexion, but of an import infinitely grave and interesting to the people who inhabit the southern portion of that Dr. von Holst, who has undertaken to write a constitutional history of the United States, does not know the difference between the United States, on the one hand, and Calhoun, Preston, Thompson, Tyler, Upshur, the Legislatures of Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee, and the whole South on the other? They were not the United States, neither individually nor collectively. Calhoun was not speaking of or for them, nor of what they had done or proposed. Every schoolboy knows that the United Sta
Canada (Canada) (search for this): chapter 14
to New Orleans and the commerce of the Mississippi, important elements of national power for the solution of the Oregon and other questions. It may well be doubted whether the Oregon dispute could have been so easily settled if Captain Elliott, the man in the white hat, had been successful in the objects of his mission to Texas; that is to say, in securing Texas as a commercial dependency of Great Britain, in abolishing slavery in Texas, and in building up on our Southwestern border another Canada. (See speech of Senator Houston, Congres- sional Globe, second session Twenty-ninth Congress, p. 459; also, remarks of Lords Brougham and Aberdeen in House of Lords, in London Morning Chronicle, August 19, 1843.) But the Union haters of 1840-‘60, whose glasses Dr. von Holst now wears, could only see from one side of the shield, and, in their impatience to abolish slavery, desired to see established on our Southwestern border an asylum for runaway negroes and hostile Indians. Dr. von Hols
Kansas (Kansas, United States) (search for this): chapter 14
nd prepare the way for a yet more desperate struggle Resolved, That the fundamental difference between mere political agitation and the action we propose, is this, that the one requires the acquiescence of the slave power, and the other only its opposition. Resolved, That the necessity for disunion is written in the whole existing character and condition of the two sections of the country, in their social organization, education, habits and laws; in the dangers of our white citizens in Kansas, and of our colored ones in Boston, in the wounds of Charles Sumner and the laurels of his assailants, and no government on earth was ever strong enough to hold together such opposing forces. Resolved, That this movement does not seek merely disunion, but the more perfect union of the free States by the expulsion of the slave States from the confederation, in which they have ever been an element of discord, danger and disgrace. Resolved, That it is not probable that the ultimate severa
Oregon (Oregon, United States) (search for this): chapter 14
ike Great Britain seizing Texas as a point d'appui, from which to attack New Orleans and annihilate the commerce of that great emporium of the Southern and Western States, in case of another war. For this reason the acquisition of Texas had long been deemed desirable by many American statesmen, including at one time even J. Q. Adams himself. In 1843 another war with Great Britain had become not improbable, in view of the Oregon and other complications. Therefore, to our citizens in distant Oregon, as well as to those in the Mississippi valley, the annexation of Texas had become desirable, because of its relation to New Orleans and the commerce of the Mississippi, important elements of national power for the solution of the Oregon and other questions. It may well be doubted whether the Oregon dispute could have been so easily settled if Captain Elliott, the man in the white hat, had been successful in the objects of his mission to Texas; that is to say, in securing Texas as a commerc
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 14
gue, Mr. Preston, had moved in the Senate, and Mr. Thompson, of South Carolina, had also moved in the House of Representatives, to declare annTariff controversy of 1828-32, Dr. von Holst says (page 98): South Carolina received the new tariff as a declaration that the protective syanguage of Calhoun. In his celebrated proclamation against the South Carolina Nullification Ordinance, he admitted that the right of resistintion, and says: By many who did not approve of the course of South Carolina, the Proclamation, taken as a whole, was looked upon as amountiy resolutions—of Jefferson and Madison. Urging the people of South Carolina to stand on this middle ground, rather than rush upon the extre single sentence, taken from Calhoun's address to the people of South Carolina, July 26th, 1831, a complete refutation of all that Dr. von Holm cannot be trusted to preserve it, who can? Speaking of the South Carolina Exposition, Dr. von Holst says: Whether such a veto is to be an
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) (search for this): chapter 14
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 agitated the question with hot zeal, unreservedly avowing that they did so upon grounds somewhat local in their complexion, but of an import infinitely grave and interesting to the people who inhabit the southern portion of the Confederacylst, who has undertaken to write a constitutional history of the United States, does not know the difference between the United States, on the one hand, and Calhoun, Preston, Thompson, Tyler, Upshur, the Legislatures of Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee, and the whole South on the other? They were not the United States, neither individually nor collectively. Calhoun was not speaking of or for them, nor of what they had done or proposed. Every schoolboy knows that the United States for years
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 14
oun's dispatch to Pakenham, quoted by von Holst. The United States have heretofore declined to meet her (Texas') wishes; bhas undertaken to write a constitutional history of the United States, does not know the difference between the United StatesUnited States, on the one hand, and Calhoun, Preston, Thompson, Tyler, Upshur, the Legislatures of Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee, and the whole South on the other? They were not the United States, neither individually nor collectively. Calhoun was not speay had done or proposed. Every schoolboy knows that the United States for years declined to meet Texas' wish for annexation, semblies, representing the united sovereignty of the Confederate States, and having power and authority to correct every erry. Hon. Alexander H. Stephens, in his history of the United States, page 347, quotes this passage from the Proclamation, aectionalism. Of the fifty millions now living in the United States few know what was meant by nullification, or have any i
1 2 3 4 5 6 7