Your search returned 2 results in 2 document sections:

Horace Greeley, The American Conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860-65: its Causes, Incidents, and Results: Intended to exhibit especially its moral and political phases with the drift and progress of American opinion respecting human slavery from 1776 to the close of the War for the Union. Volume I., chapter 8 (search)
tates, has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own account. The same power that knit us together can unknit. The same formality which formed the links of the Union is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of the States which formed the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any branch of it. Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or distract the efficacy of its laws, is treason--treason to all intents and purposes.--Richmond Enquirer, November 1, 1814. and antagoistic parties. Mr. Webster, Debate on Foot's resolutions, January 26, 1830. in replying to Mr. Hayne of South Carolina on this subject, forcibly said: I understood the gentleman to maintain, that, without revolution, without civil commotion, without rebellion, a remedy for supposed abuse and transgression of the powers of the General Government lies in a direct appeal to the interference of the State Governments. Mr. Hayne here rose and said: He did not contend for
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 3, Chapter 32: the annexation of Texas.—the Mexican War.—Winthrop and Sumner.—1845-1847. (search)
wed from the beginning of the war, and had even been disclosed before it began. Von Hoist, vol. III. pp. 109, 253, 267, 268. He rejected as a model of conduct the example of the English statesmen who refused support to the British ministry in our Revolution, for the reason that a hostile vote of Congress does not, as in England, effect a change in the Administration. Addresses and Speeches, vol. i. pp. 565, 566. He quoted, as stating the principle of his course. a letter of John Jay, Nov. 1, 1814; and this drew a paper in reply from William Jay, printed in the New York Tribune, Feb. 1, 1847. J. Q. Adams, as well as Sumner, did not admit the pertinency of the distinction made by Winthrop. Delano of Ohio, in a reply to Winthrop, Feb. 2.1847, maintained that the difference between the English and American systems did not at all affect the right and duty of Congress to withhold supplies from the Executive in the prosecution of an unjust war. J. R. Giddings's Life, by G. W. Julian, pp