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) 1,628 0 Browse Search
Centreville (Virginia, United States) 530 0 Browse Search
Doc 458 0 Browse Search
Washington (United States) 427 7 Browse Search
Missouri (Missouri, United States) 406 0 Browse Search
Bull Run, Va. (Virginia, United States) 347 1 Browse Search
Irwin McDowell 314 2 Browse Search
Tennessee (Tennessee, United States) 272 0 Browse Search
Kentucky (Kentucky, United States) 258 0 Browse Search
Daniel Tyler 252 2 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 2. (ed. Frank Moore). Search the whole document.

Found 299 total hits in 60 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Samuel Webster (search for this): chapter 13
riotic will wielded the Executive power, and the Senate chamber was filled with the counsels of Webster. There it ventured in January, 1830, to assert its soundness. A favored son of the State, wittrine and its gallant champion fell together. That speech, too, did more than make the name of Webster immortal. It achieved more, much more, than a triumph over the Southerner and his fancy. It fe separation of its neighbors into absolute and alien sovereignties. And lastly, he writes Mr. Webster, in May, 1830, who had sent him his speech on Foot's resolution: I had before receivedhe hopes of liberty and humanity, and present a catastrophe at which all ought to shudder. Mr. Webster and Mr. Adams, too, have been invoked to support the heresy. What desecration! If their spih they would instantly have rebuked so unfounded an imputation on their wisdom and patriotism — Webster the advocate or the apologist of secession? His speech already referred to, of January, 1830,
Benjamin McCulloch (search for this): chapter 13
pestilence and famine, than to hear gentlemen talk of secession. To break up! to break up this great Government! to dismember this great country! to astonish Europe with an act of folly such as Europe, for two centuries, has never beheld in any Government! No, sir! no, sir! There will be no secession. Gentlemen are not serious when they talk of secession. The Supreme Court, too, speaking through each of its great chiefs, Marshall and Taney, repels the doctrine. In the case of McCulloch and Maryland, the first of these, as the organ of the whole Court, rejected it in clear terms. The very foundation, the only one on which it can for a moment stand, is, that the Constitution is a compact, and not in the usual and sovereign sense of the word, a government. Let me read you how he disposed of this: In discussing this question, (the question of compact,) the counsel for the State of Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the Constitution, to
Foot (search for this): chapter 13
they would do no more, unless justified by an intolerable oppression, than would be done by an individual State as a portion of the Union, in separating itself without a like cause from the other portions. Nor would greater evils be inflicted by such a mutilation of a State on some of its parts than might be felt by some of the States from the separation of its neighbors into absolute and alien sovereignties. And lastly, he writes Mr. Webster, in May, 1830, who had sent him his speech on Foot's resolution: I had before received more than one copy from other sources, and had read the speech with a full sense of its powerful bearing on the subjects discussed, and particularly its over-whelming effect on the nullifying doctrine of South Carolina. How clear, how convincing are all these to show the utter unsoundness of the doctrine, in the opinion of one so eminently fit to give us the true meaning of the Constitution from having largely assisted in framing it, in expounding
Madison (search for this): chapter 13
except as every Government is a compact, implied in the correlative obligations of protection and allegiance. This is clear upon the authority of the great names that assisted in forming it. The doctrine of compact in the days of South Carolina nullification, (she has been before restive and troublesome, perhaps from not having much else to do than to theorize and grumble and scold,) was relied upon in support of that heresy. Ever alive to the fame of a work in great measure his own, Mr. Madison, in a few masterly letters, rich with the perspicuity of his style, and with the patriotism which ever adorned him, exposed its fallacy to a demonstration. His motives were beyond suspicion, if unworthy motives could ever have been attached to his pure nature. His public career was run. He had greatly contributed to his country's prosperity and renown, in every high official station. He had seen the various defects of the Confederation, and to correct them, had successfully exerted his
W. C. Rives (search for this): chapter 13
into the separate depositories of the Government of the United States and the Governments of the individual States. That the Government of the United States is a Government, in as strict a sense of the term, as the Governments of the States; being, like them, organized into a legislative, executive, and judicial department, operating, like them, directly on persons and things, and having, like them, the command of a physical force for executing the powers committed to it. He writes Mr. Rives, in December, 1828: Were some of the Southern doctrines latterly advanced valid, our political system would not be a Government, but a mere league, in which the members have given up no part whatever of their sovereignty to a common Government, and retain, moreover, a right in each to dissolve the compact when it pleases. It seems to be forgotten, that in the case of a mere league there must be as much right on one side to assert and maintain its obligations as on the other to cancel it,
M. L. Hurlburt (search for this): chapter 13
his native land with all his original ardor, and seeing how sure the doctrine was to involve it in the calamities certain to have resulted from the Government which the Constitution displaced, and displaced in order to avoid, he exposed and denounced it as a fatal heresy, full of the very perils which it was the very purpose of the Convention to avert. I have not time to give you more than an extract or two from the correspondence. But these will be enough for my object. Writing to Mr. M. L. Hurlburt in May, 1830, who had sent him a pamphlet of his own on the subject, he says, in order to discover its true nature: The facts of the case which must decide its true character, a character without a prototype, are that the Constitution was created by the people, but by the people as composing distinct States and acting by a majority of each; that, being derived from the same source as the Constitution of the States, it has within each State the same authority as the Constitution o
Reverdy Johnson (search for this): chapter 13
Doc. 13.-speech of Reverdy Johnson, at Baltimore, Jan. 10, 1861. from the author's copy. Mr. President and gentlemen of Baltimore:--For this cordial and warm salutation, you have my most sincere and grateful thanks. Although willing to refer it in some measure to feelings of personal kindness to myself, I prize it the more, infinitely the more, from the assurance it gives me that you believe I am, as I know you are, attached, devotedly attached, to the Union our fathers bequeathed to us as the crowning work of all their trials, struggles, perils, in the mighty war which, ending in our independence, animated and strengthened the hopes of human liberty in the bosoms of its votaries in all the nations of the earth. As long as they were spared to us, that work, under their superintending vigilance and patriotic wisdom, was preserved in its perfect integrity. No false local ambition was suffered to mar it; no unfounded, heretical doctrine of State rights was permitted to overtu
Roger B. Taney (search for this): chapter 13
pe, for two centuries, has never beheld in any Government! No, sir! no, sir! There will be no secession. Gentlemen are not serious when they talk of secession. The Supreme Court, too, speaking through each of its great chiefs, Marshall and Taney, repels the doctrine. In the case of McCulloch and Maryland, the first of these, as the organ of the whole Court, rejected it in clear terms. The very foundation, the only one on which it can for a moment stand, is, that the Constitution is a adjudged was over and over again, under the administration of the same great judge, maintained as the settled judgment of the Court, and without a dissenting voice. It has, with equal clearness, uniformity, and force, been upheld since Chief Justice Taney became the presiding ornament of that high tribunal. It was involved in the case of the United States and Booth in 21st Howard. In that instance the State of Wisconsin, through its courts, resisted the authority of the United States, and
Booth (search for this): chapter 13
from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit. The principle here adjudged was over and over again, under the administration of the same great judge, maintained as the settled judgment of the Court, and without a dissenting voice. It has, with equal clearness, uniformity, and force, been upheld since Chief Justice Taney became the presiding ornament of that high tribunal. It was involved in the case of the United States and Booth in 21st Howard. In that instance the State of Wisconsin, through its courts, resisted the authority of the United States, and denied the validity of an act of Congress, constitutionally passed. It was the object of the writ of error to have the judgment reviewed. The supremacy of the General Government was again denied. The alleged inherent sovereignty of the State was again asserted, and the conduct of Wisconsin vindicated on those grounds. The Court unanimously, through the chief, sai
John Adams (search for this): chapter 13
the task, of construing the Constitution of a great nation, as you would an indictment to rescue a culprit. His object was to preserve and enforce it, not to escape from it by little technical subterfuges. He wished to perpetuate, not to destroy. He gave no countenance to a doctrine, an innovation which would be fatal to the Federal Government, fatal to the Union, and fatal to the hopes of liberty and humanity, and present a catastrophe at which all ought to shudder. Mr. Webster and Mr. Adams, too, have been invoked to support the heresy. What desecration! If their spirits had been permitted to revisit the Senate Chamber, so often the theatre of their fame and glory, and to have heard the invocation, can you not imagine the sternness and indignation with which they would instantly have rebuked so unfounded an imputation on their wisdom and patriotism — Webster the advocate or the apologist of secession? His speech already referred to, of January, 1830, in almost every line o
1 2 3 4 5 6