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
1776 AD (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
he war between the States could, with truth, be called—a rebel—and, without much extravagance in the figure, was said to have fought the battles of the Revolution with a halter round his neck. Had there been no inalienable rights, or had they not been violated, he could not rightfully have been absolved from his allegiance to the crown, or conscientiously have felt that he had not broken his faith as subject to the lawful powers of the British government, in taking up arms against it. In 1776 thirteen of the British colonies in America sent delegates to a general congress, who there, for the colonies they represented, made the declaration that these 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 to the ju
1777 AD (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
tuted. 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 to certain articles of confederation and perpetual union between the States they represented, and that the style of the confederacy shall be the United States of America. That no purpose existed to consolidate the States into one body politic is manifest from the. terms of the Second Article, which was: Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdictio
1811 AD (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
d 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 assembled in December
December, 1814 AD (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
811, 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 destined to dissolution by reason of the multiplied abuses of bad administration, it should, if possible, be the work of peaceable times and deliberate consent. . . . 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 T
January, 1861 AD (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
all find their destruction to have generally resulted from these causes. In 1861 all the plans proposed to restrain the majority had failed. The dangers which had been described as belonging to the condition we were in had to be met. The South, by her representatives in the two Houses of Congress, tried, by select committees, to find some possible means of giving security to the 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, af
1783 AD (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
ty. The advocates of the political doctrine of State sovereignty claim that the citing of the names of the different States concerned in the treaty of peace in 1783 implied the independent sovereignty of each. The opponents of the doctrine say that they were named only to define what States were included in the treaty; that treat 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 recognitioevolution 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
April, 1787 AD (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
representatives of the nationality of the confederation; that when, a few years afterwards, they adopted a Constitution, whose preamble began, We the people (not the States) of the United States, 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 wil
1803 AD (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
e would be to sever her connection with the Union; and may it not reasonably be inferred that, if the right to withdraw had been recognized, there would have been additional care not to give just cause for the exercise of that right? Though 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 tha
December 7th, 1787 AD (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
f nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. Thus the matter stood when the Constitution to form a more perfect union was adopted, not, as has been most unjustifiably asserted, by the people of the United States in mass, but by the people of the States, each acting in its own convention and ratifying at different dates, the first being Dec. 7, 1787, the last May 29, 1790. In view of facts so generally known, or (if not so) accessible to every reader of American history, it is surprising that some have contended that the Union was formed by the people of the United States as one body politic. Though the States by a voluntary compact created a general government and delegated to it enumerated powers, reserving all else to themselves, it has been attempted to deduce from these limited grants a supremacy for the agent over the Stat
March, 1787 AD (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
tified 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, which was wri
1 2 3 4 5 6