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
May 29th, 1790 AD (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
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 States, and, consequently,
1861 AD (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
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 ac States into a dissolution of the Union. The examples cited are sufficient to show that secession was not a new idea in 1861, and that its assertion was not of Southern origin. Before leaving the subject, it may in general terms be stated that thstory of ancient and modern republics, we shall 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 condited States. Now we have reached the point of inquiry as to what was the moral duty of a citizen of a seceding State in 1861. It is not proposed to discuss any question arising out of subsequent events. It had, so far as I know, in all the ear
1788 AD (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
every appeal to justice and their compact, was the only remedy which seems to have been left. De Tocqueville, in his Democracy in America, vol. i, p. 301, writes: The majority in that country exercise a prodigious actual authority and a moral influence which is scarcely less preponderant; no obstacles exist which can impede or so much as retard its progress, or which induce it to heed the complaints of those whom it crushes upon its path. Mr. Madison, in the Virginia convention of 1788, said: Turbulence, violence, and abuse of power by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority have produced factions and commotions which in republics have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall 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
1787 AD (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
that it was impracticable to administer the general affairs of the Union without the possession of additional powers. In 1787 a convention met to amend the Articles of Confederation, and ended by proposing a new form of government which was to be sithout an object. Reassumption is the correlative of delegation. By the published debates of the general convention of 1787 which prepared the Constitution, and of the State conventions to which it was severally submitted for approval or rejectio 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-inhe people of the State—resumed the grants made by them as parties to the federal compact, they, following the precedent of 1787, formed a new union styled the Confederate States of America. The wish of all, and the general expectation, was that th
1790 AD (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
ajority 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 authorize the employment of force against a delinquent State was denounce
1853 AD (search for this): entry state-sovereignty
the North and the South, by so organizing the two Houses of Congress that neither section would have a majority in both. The purpose was good, but the calculation 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 wou
1 2 3 4 5 6