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) 324 0 Browse Search
Richmond (Virginia, United States) 294 28 Browse Search
Virginia (Virginia, United States) 262 0 Browse Search
Jefferson Davis 210 2 Browse Search
Andersonville, Ga. (Georgia, United States) 177 1 Browse Search
Washington (United States) 162 2 Browse Search
Arkansas (Arkansas, United States) 116 0 Browse Search
R. E. Lee 114 0 Browse Search
Georgia (Georgia, United States) 106 0 Browse Search
William T. Sherman 105 1 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 1. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones).

Found 11,630 total hits in 3,040 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...
Thomas Jefferson (search for this): chapter 1.1
loud its tumult, that for the first time it broke upon Mr. Jefferson's ear like a fire bell in the night. The contest betwe government. These were respectively led by Hamilton and Jefferson, the one with an avowed preference for monarchy, the othets disunion tendencies, and joined the Democratic under Mr. Jefferson, became the old man eloquent when he fanned the smouldeo this high authority? In this opinion of Mr. Webster, Mr. Jefferson undoubtedly concurred. Says Lunt, p. 203: Mr. JeffersoMr. Jefferson took a different view of the subject, and it is proper to give his opinion as stated by Mr. John Q. Adams (who appears to h and sedition acts presented a case of such infraction, Mr. Jefferson considered them as absolutely null and void, and thoughwe once more insist, that the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, that governments derir Washington, the father of his country, at its head; her Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, in his ca
of the victory by the winning party will show the object and nature of that contest. When it became obvious that the only protection of the rights of the minority against the encroachments of the majority was to be found in the limitations upon the power of the governing party, a death struggle arose between the two parties over the constitutional restraints upon this power. The struggle between the two parties commenced at the beginning of the government. These were respectively led by Hamilton and Jefferson, the one with an avowed preference for monarchy, the other the great apostle of democracy — men of signal abilities, and each conscious of what would be the consequence of complete and perfect victory on either side. The party of power showed a constant tendency to draw all important subjects of jurisdiction within the vortex of Federal control, and an equally persevering effort on the other to limit that control to the strict necessities of a common government. A great lead
itutional defences, and loudly proclaimed the danger of yielding them up. Time and again they proclaimed that the worst of all governments was that of a majority of numbers with absolute and unrestricted powers. Despotism of all sorts was bad, but the despotism of a majority of numbers in a democratic form of government was the worst of all — particularly was that the case in regard to slavery, as was often asserted. In February, 1790, when two abolition petitions, one of them signed by Dr. Franklin, were presented to Congress, that body resolved that Congress had no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or even the treatment of them within any of the States, it remaining with the several States alone to provide any regulations therein which humanity or true policy may require. Congress thus clearly declared its view of its power over the subject. Congress was petitioned to do all in its power to discourage slavery, of which a Massachusetts man, in an able history o
therwise, to touch not, taste not, handle not. (Lunt's Origin of the Late War, p. 25.) In the debatesolemnly undertaken both express and implied. (Lunt, p. 27.) The history of this transaction shows im a fugitive slave openly in the free States. Lunt, p. 320, says: At length fourteen of the sixteen to require more than this passing allusion. (Lunt, 328). Was there anything in all this calculatepted by a united vote of the Republicans. Says Lunt: The vote of the Republican members of the Senain the past: what was the hope for the future? Lunt (p. 363) says with justice: That it is impossibinority of its rights under the constitution. (Lunt's Origin of the War, p. 362). Indeed, one of itis amendment was introduced by a Pennsylvanian (Lunt, p. 358), and passed unanimously by the conventin broken on one side is broken on all sides. (Lunt, p. 321). Had not the precise case occurred? Hter, Mr. Jefferson undoubtedly concurred. Says Lunt, p. 203: Mr. Jefferson took a different view of[4 more.
hey nor their northern compatriots entertained any question of the fidelity of their successors to engagements so solemnly undertaken both express and implied. (Lunt, p. 27.) The history of this transaction shows how early the South was taught to look to the constitution for the defences of their rights in regard to slavery, how fully, too, and clearly the Congress admitted the existence of these defences, and that the South disregarded the unauthorized menace of these anarchic Quakers, as Carlisle calls them, because they relied upon the virtue of Congress that they would not exercise any unconstitutional authority. Their property in slaves was guaranteed by the constitution; they felt authorized to say so by a solemn declaration of Congress made at the time; and they had too much confidence in the northern majority, who were soon to control that body, to believe that directly or indirectly they would impair or destroy a right so solemnly guaranteed. To have anticipated such an att
Gabriel Toombs (search for this): chapter 1.1
itive slaves. Long before the secession of the slave States, it had become almost impossible, without the assistance of armed forces, to reclaim a fugitive slave openly in the free States. Lunt, p. 320, says: At length fourteen of the sixteen free States had provided statutes which rendered any attempt to execute the fugitive slave act so difficult as to be practically impossible, and placed each of those States in an attitude of virtual resistance to the laws of the United States. When Mr. Toombs, in the Senate of the United States, during the session in which he withdrew from that body, referred to these laws and taxed the free States with their violations of constitutional obligation, in evidence of which he produced these statutes, it was pitiful to hear the excuses by which the representatives of these States sought to squirm out of the difficulty — a difficulty for which the executives of Ohio and Iowa would scarcely have cared to apologize, if it be true, as doubtless it is,
John Quincy Adams (search for this): chapter 1.1
ng stronger and more dangerous in spirit. It began at first by taking part in the contests between Whigs and Democrats, and grew upon the agitations in Congress and the newspaper press. This war of petitions for abolition was commenced by John Quincy Adams in 1831, when he presented a petition from Pennsylvania for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, but at the same time declared that he could not vote for it. He who was so denounced when he left the Federal party, on accounp the compact, according to this high authority? In this opinion of Mr. Webster, Mr. Jefferson undoubtedly concurred. Says Lunt, p. 203: Mr. Jefferson took a different view of the subject, and it is proper to give his opinion as stated by Mr. John Q. Adams (who appears to have agreed with him) in his eulogy on Mr. Madison. Mr. Adams said: Concurring in the doctrines that the separate States have a right to interpose in cases of palpable infractions of the constitution by the government of the
Samuel P. Bates (search for this): chapter 1.1
heir people. The abolition party, which denounced the constitution as a covenant with death and an agreement with hell, was fast growing in power and influence in the free States, and threatened to become the most powerful political organization within their borders. Massachusetts had adopted resolutions by her legislature, with the assent of her governor — if his message represented his opinions — resolutions which were denounced at the time as being of a disunion character. Her senator, Bates, presented them in silence, and Colonel King, of Alabama, regretted that a proposition should come from Massachusetts to dissolve the Union. (See Lunt's Origin of the War, 128-9). All hope of acquiring any additional political strength by the South to defend their rights was gone. The free States had announced their determination to exclude slavery from the territories of the United States, and they had the strength to do it, if they believed, as they affected to do, that the constitution
William R. King (search for this): chapter 1.1
denounced the constitution as a covenant with death and an agreement with hell, was fast growing in power and influence in the free States, and threatened to become the most powerful political organization within their borders. Massachusetts had adopted resolutions by her legislature, with the assent of her governor — if his message represented his opinions — resolutions which were denounced at the time as being of a disunion character. Her senator, Bates, presented them in silence, and Colonel King, of Alabama, regretted that a proposition should come from Massachusetts to dissolve the Union. (See Lunt's Origin of the War, 128-9). All hope of acquiring any additional political strength by the South to defend their rights was gone. The free States had announced their determination to exclude slavery from the territories of the United States, and they had the strength to do it, if they believed, as they affected to do, that the constitution was no obstacle in their path. The right
r of the slaveholding States, and with the state of feeling then existing and cherished, they had nothing to expect but to be dwarfed and oppressed, judging of the future by the past. Indeed, an armed invasion of Virginia had been just made by John Brown, with the avowed purpose of exciting servile insurrection, and although suppressed by the United States and State forces, it excited no such outburst of horror and denunciation at the North as it might reasonably be expected to have done. On td to have been considered more as a martyr perishing in a great and holy cause, than a criminal seeking to excite a servile war, whose victims were to be women and children. The tolling of bells and the firing of minute guns upon the occasion of Brown's funeral; the meeting houses draped in mourning, as for a hero; the prayers offered, the sermons and discourses pronounced in his honor, as for a saint — all are of a date too recent and too familiarly known to require more than this passing all
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...