hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
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
Alabama (Alabama, United States) 1,016 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 896 0 Browse Search
England (United Kingdom) 300 0 Browse Search
William H. Seward 180 2 Browse Search
Europe 134 0 Browse Search
New England (United States) 102 0 Browse Search
Brazil (Brazil) 92 0 Browse Search
Gibralter (North Carolina, United States) 88 0 Browse Search
Raphael Semmes 87 5 Browse Search
Liverpool (United Kingdom) 86 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in Raphael Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat During the War Between the States.

Found 12,896 total hits in 2,887 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): chapter 2
the North, have been Daniel Webster and Joseph Story, both from Massachusetts. Webster was, for a long time, a Senator in Congress, and Store as jealous, in this respect, as the Southern States. Next to Massachusetts, New Hampshire has been, perhaps, the most fanatical and bittereclare this truth, and thus put it beyond cavil in the future. Massachusetts expressed herself as follows, in connection with her ratificatie by them exercised. Webster and Story had not yet arisen in Massachusetts, to teach the new doctrine that the Constitution had been formeted-States, in contra-distinction to the people of the States. Massachusetts did not speak in the name of any such people, but in her own nat of the Constitution, similar to that which was recommended by Massachusetts, making explicit reservation of her sovereignty, but she annexemendment—the same, substantially, as that urged by Virginia and Massachusetts: That each State in the Union shall respectively [not aggregate
New Hampshire (New Hampshire, United States) (search for this): chapter 2
nefit of the whole, there can have been no merger. This was eminently the case with regard to these United States. No one can read the Journal and Debates of the Philadelphia Convention, or those of the several State Conventions to which the Constitution was submitted for adoption, without being struck with the scrupulous care with which all the States guarded their sovereignty. The Northern States were quite as jealous, in this respect, as the Southern States. Next to Massachusetts, New Hampshire has been, perhaps, the most fanatical and bitter of the former States, in the prosecution of the late war against the South. That State, in her Constitution, adopted in 1792, three years after the Federal Constitution went into operation, inserted the following provision, among others, in her declaration of principles: The people of this Common-wealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter sha
North Carolina (North Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 2
hat British tyranny would have been more tolerable. So distasteful to her was the foul embrace that was tendered her, that she not only recommended an amendment of the Constitution, similar to that which was recommended by Massachusetts, making explicit reservation of her sovereignty, but she annexed a condition to her ratification, to the effect that she retained the right to withdraw the powers which she had granted, whenever the same shall be perverted to her injury or oppression. North Carolina urged the following amendment—the same, substantially, as that urged by Virginia and Massachusetts: That each State in the Union shall respectively [not aggregately] retain every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the Federal Government. Pennsylvania guarded her sovereignty by insisting upon the following amendment: All the rights of sovereignty which are not, by the said Constitutio
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) (search for this): chapter 2
retained the right to withdraw the powers which she had granted, whenever the same shall be perverted to her injury or oppression. North Carolina urged the following amendment—the same, substantially, as that urged by Virginia and Massachusetts: That each State in the Union shall respectively [not aggregately] retain every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the Federal Government. Pennsylvania guarded her sovereignty by insisting upon the following amendment: All the rights of sovereignty which are not, by the said Constitution, expressly and plainly vested in the Congress, shall be deemed to remain with, and shall be exercised by the several States in the Union. The result of this jealousy on the part of the States was the adoption of the 10th amendment to the Constitution of the United States as follows: The powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 2
of government, formed by the people of the United States, as contradistinguished from the States. as eminently the case with regard to these United States. No one can read the Journal and Debates s follows: The powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by itained and established by the people of the United States in the aggregate! From that day to this, d States was ordained by the people of the United States in the aggregate; nor did the Preamble to itting the instrument to the people of the United States in the aggregate, and thereby accomplishin, when they declare that the people of the United States in the aggregate, as one nation, adopted t. And again: Every Constitution for the United States must, inevitably, consist of a great varie It is not possible that the people of the United States in the aggregate, as one nation, ordained —by them at all, but by the people of the United States in the aggregate? As remarked by Mr. Madi[19 more...]
Annapolis (Maryland, United States) (search for this): chapter 2
es, and not by the people of the United States in the aggregate. There was no such people known as the people of the United States, in the aggregate, at the time of the formation of the Constitution. If there is any such people now, it was formed by the Constitution. But this is not the question. The question now is, who formed the Constitution, not what was formed by it? If it was formed by the States, admit our adversaries, it may be broken by the States. The delegates who met at Annapolis were sent thither by the States, and not by the people of the United States. The Convention of 1787, which formed the Constitution, was equally composed of members sent to Philadelphia by the States. James Madison was chosen by the people of Virginia and not by the people of New York; and Alexander Hamilton was chosen by the people of New York, and not by the people of Virginia. Every article, section, and paragraph of the Constitution was voted for, or against, by States; the little S
Patrick Henry (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 2
several States united by this instrument. And this is the foundation that the Northern advocates of a consolidated government build upon, when they declare that the people of the United States in the aggregate, as one nation, adopted the Constitution, and thus gave the fundamental law to the States, instead of the States giving it to the Federal Government. It is well known that this phrase, We, the people, &c., be came a subject of discussion in the Virginia ratifying Convention. Patrick Henry, with the prevision of a prophet, was, as we have seen, bitterly opposed to the adoption of the Constitution. He was its enemy a l'outrance. Not having been a member of the Convention, of 1787, that framed the instrument, and being unacquainted with the circumstances above detailed, relative to the change which had been made in the phraseology of its Preamble, he attacked the Constitution on the very ground since assumed by Webster and Story, to wit: that the instrument itself proclaime
1800 AD (search for this): chapter 3
its powers, but that, as in all cases of compact among persons having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode and measure of redress. It is unnecessary to quote the other resolution, as the above contains all that is sufficient for my purpose, which is to show that Mr. Jefferson was a secessionist, and that with this record he went before the American people as a candidate for the Presidency, with the following results: In 1800 he beat his opponent, John Adams, who represented the consolidationists of that day, by a majority of 8 votes in the Electoral College. In 1804, being a candidate for re-election, he beat his opponent by the overwhelming majority of 162, to 14 votes. In the Northern States alone, Mr. Jefferson received 85 votes, whilst in the same States his opponent received but 9. This was a pretty considerable indorsement of secession by the Northern States. In 1808, Mr. Madison, who penned the Virgi
1815 AD (search for this): chapter 3
he complaints of New England before the Federal Government, and there is no predicting what might have occurred, if the delegates had not found, that peace had been declared, when they arrived at Washington. It thus appears, that from 1803-4 to 1815, New England was constantly in the habit of speaking of the dissolution of the Union—her leading men deducing this right from the nature of the compact between the States. It is curious and instructive, and will well repay the perusal, to read thugh, she recanted all the doctrines under which she had sought shelter, tore the Constitution into fragments, scattered it to the winds; and finally, when the South threw herself on the defensive, as Massachusetts had threatened to do, in 1803 and 1815, she subjugated her. What was the powerful motive which thus induced the North to overthrow the government which it had labored so assiduously with the South to establish, and which it had construed in common with the South, for the period of
1830 AD (search for this): chapter 3
Chapter 3: From the foundation of the Federal Government down to 1830, both the North and the South held the Constitution to be a compact between the States. This change in the education of the people had taken place since about the year 1830; for, up to that time, both of the great political parties of the country, the Wo concede,—there never was any material difference between them down to the year 1830, as to the true nature of their Government. They all held it to be a federal coed evidence, that they agreed with Mr. Jefferson, and the South down to the year 1830, on this question of State rights, than is implied in the Presidential electionsseen, that for forty years, or from the foundation of the Federal Government, to 1830, there was no material difference of opinion between the sections, as to the natconstitutional were these acts considered, that South Carolina nullified them in 1830. Immediately all New England was arrayed against South Carolina. An entire and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...