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
Joseph West (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
was bad, so that in a not-distant future the North, as a section, had a majority in both Houses of Congress and in the electoral colleges for the choice of the President. Party did for many years control faction, and principles, independent of latitude and longitude, formed the cement of political parties. Thus it was, as late as 1853. that that true patriot and friend of the Constitution, Franklin Pierce, could conscientiously say that, politically, he knew no North, no South, no East, no West. The wise statesmen who formed the plan for the new Union of 1787-90, with admirable caution, required a material barrier to check majorities from aggression under the influence of self-interest and lust of dominion. They could not have been certain that their method of preserving the balance of power between the sections would be permanently successful. What, then, was the remedy in case of violated compact and aggression upon reserved rights? None was stated, but the proposition to
John Jay (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
ates, it was ratified by the people assembled in representative conventions, and not by the State legislatures, and so disowned all independent State sovereignty, which the opponents of the doctrine declare never existed either as colonies or States. James Madison, in a letter to Edmund Randolph, in April, 1787, wrote: I hold it for a fundamental point that an individual independence of the States is utterly irreconcilable with the idea of aggregate sovereignty. Washington, in a letter to John Jay, in March, 1787, on the subject of a national Constitution, said: A thirst for power, and the bantling—I had liked to have said the monster—sovereignty, which has taken such fast hold of the States individually, will, when joined by the many whose personal consequence in the line of State politics will, in a manner, be annihilated, form a strong phalanx against it. The doctrine of State rights. This question is ably discussed in a paper of great historical interest by Jefferson Davis,
Josiah Quincy (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
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, violently if they must. The Hartford Convention assembled in December, 1814. From their published report the following extract is made: If the Union be
Thomas T. Crittenden (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
e Southern States short of adopting the last resort —secession. The committee of the Senate, organized in 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. Exultin
Stephen A. Douglas (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
ese 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 pacificatthe South. Mr. Seward, he of the irrepressible conflict, who was regarded as the power behind the throne of the incoming administration, was a member of the committee above referred to; but he sat in the Senate silent under the challenge of Mr. Douglas, and allowed the language of Mr. Phillips to go for what it was worth. For the first time in the history of the country a sectional candidate for the Presidency had been elected. A majority of the Presidents had been Southern men, but none
Oliver Ellsworth (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
ertain that their method of preserving the balance of power between the sections would be permanently successful. What, then, was the remedy in case of violated compact and aggression upon reserved rights? None was stated, but the proposition to authorize the employment of force against a delinquent State was denounced on all sides of the convention and rejected without a division. In the original draft of the Constitution the term national government was written: to this expression Mr. Ellsworth objected, and moved to drop the word national and retain the proper title, the United States ; which motion was unanimously adopted by the convention. Both the coercion of a State and the use of the term national government were emphatically condemned by the framers of the Constitution. A compact was made between independent States by which expressly enumerated powers were delegated to a government instituted for their common benefit, which was a partnership without limitation. No m
Susannah Elliot (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
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 federal government, or to regard it as being divisible. The States intrusted to the federal government, as their agent, some of the functions of sovereignty, but the performance of these by authority of the people of the States did not involve a violation of a cardinal feature in the American t
Noah Webster (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
What then? Was the Union to be dissolved? Was slavery to be introduced into the Northern or to be abolished in the Southern States? The declaration was an offence against the Constitution, and neither branch of the proposition could be executed without a palpable violation of it. Many of the States had passed what were called personal-liberty laws, in direct violation of the constitutional obligation to return fugitives held to service or labor under the laws of another State, which Mr. Webster in his great oration in Virginia said, if persisted in, would be destructive to the compact of Union. The right of the South equally with the people of other sections to occupy, with every species of property known to any State, the common territory of the United States, was denied by the North, under the specious and wholly untenable plea that to take slaves to the Territories would be the extension of slavery. Though the argument was upon a false basis, it served the purpose of infl
Henry Cabot Lodge (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
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, violently if they must. The Hartford Convention
Jefferson Davis (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
many whose personal consequence in the line of State politics will, in a manner, be annihilated, form a strong phalanx against it. The doctrine of State rights. This question is ably discussed in a paper of great historical interest by Jefferson Davis, which was written a few weeks before his death. To do justice to the motives which actuated the soldiers of the Confederacy, it is needful that the cause for which they fought should be fairly understood; for no degree of skill, valor,h 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
1 2 3 4 5 6