Browsing named entities in Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. You can also browse the collection for Edmund Randolph or search for Edmund Randolph in all documents.

Your search returned 8 results in 6 document sections:

Chapter 2: The convention of 1787 diversity of opinion Luther Martin's account of the three parties the question of representation Compromise effected Randolph's resolutions the word national condemned plan of Government framed difficulty with regard to ratification, and its solution provision for secession from the Union views of Gerry and Madison false Interpretations close of the convention. When the convention met in Philadelphia in May, 1787, it soon became evideother sources. All that is requisite for the present purpose is to notice a few particulars of special significance or relevancy to the subject of inquiry. Early in the session of the convention a series of resolutions was introduced by Edmund Randolph of Virginia, embodying a proposed plan of government, which were considered in committee of the whole House, and formed the basis of a protracted discussion. The first of these resolutions, as amended before a vote was taken, was in these w
all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised. The debates in the Virginia convention were long and animated. Some of the most eminent and most gifted men of that period took part in them, and they have ever since been referred to for the exposition which they afford of the interpretation of the Constitution by its authors and their contemporaries. Among the members were Madison, Mason, and Randolph, who had also been members of the convention at Philadelphia. Madison was one of the most earnest advocates of the new Constitution, while Mason was as warmly opposed to its adoption; so also was Patrick Henry, the celebrated orator. It was assailed with great vehemence at every vulnerable or doubtful point, and was finally ratified June 26, 1788, by a vote of 89 to 79—a majority of only ten. This ratification was expressed in the same terms employed by other states, by the delegates o
consider, amend, and establish the same. Madison Papers, p. 1184. Here the issue seems to have been more distinctly made between the two ideas of people of the states and one people in the aggregate. The fate of the latter is briefly recorded in the two words, not seconded. Morris was a man of distinguished ability, great personal influence, and undoubted patriotism, but out of all that assemblage—comprising, as it did, such admitted friends of centralism as Hamilton, King, Wilson, Randolph, Pinckney, and others—there was not one to sustain him in the proposition to incorporate into the Constitution that theory which now predominates, the theory on which was waged the late bloody war, which was called a war for the Union. It failed for want of a second, and does not even appear in the official journal of the convention. The very fact that such a suggestion was made would be unknown to us but for the record kept by Madison. The extracts which have been given, in treating o
f coercion? The thing is a dream—it is impossible. Ibid., pp. 232, 233. Unhappily, our generation has seen that, in the decay of the principles and feelings which animated the hearts of all patriots in that day, this thing, like many others then regarded as impossible dreams, has been only too feasible, and that states have permitted themselves to be used as instruments, not merely for the coercion, but for the destruction of the freedom and independence of their sister states. Edmund Randolph, governor of Virginia, although the mover of the original proposition to authorize the employment of the forces of the Union against a delinquent member, which had been so signally defeated in the federal convention, afterward, in the Virginia convention, made an eloquent protest against the idea of the employment of force against a state. What species of military coercion, said he, could the General Government adopt for the enforcement of obedience to its demands? Either an army sent
ions of the wilderness; is there one which would have consented to allow the Federal Government to control or to discriminate between her institutions and those of her confederate States? But, if it be contended that this is argument, and that you need authority, I will draw it from the fountain; from the spring before it had been polluted; from the debates in the formation of the Constitution; from the views of those who at least it will be admitted understood what they were doing. Mr. Randolph, it will be recollected, introduced a projet for a Government, consisting of a series of resolutions. Among them was one which proposed to give Congress the power to call forth the force of the Union against any member of the Union failing to fulfill its duty under the articles thereof. That was, to give Congress the power to coerce the States; to bring the States into subjection to the Federal Government. Now, sir, let us see how that was treated; and first I will refer to one whose w
l troops, 288. Bridges destroyed, 288. Occupation by Federal troops, 289-91. Bancroft, —, 99. Banks, General, 290, 291, 389, 394. Procedure against Maryland, 290-92. Barbour, James, 9. Philip P., 9. Barksdale, Colonel, 376. Dr. Randolph, 329. Barnwell, Robert W., 182, 206, 207. Bartow, Colonel, 263, 310. Bates, —, 231. Beauregard, Gen. P. G. T., 233, 236, 295, 299, 300, 301,302, 303, 305, 306,307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 382, 386, 387, 396. Dispatches from Confedt from address to people of Mis-souri, 361-62. Pugh, —, 38. Q Quincy, Josiah, 63, 140. Right of secession, 62-63. Quitman, Gen. John A., 17, 18. R Rains, Gen. G. W. Establishment of powder mill, 274-75, 407-08. Randolph, Edmund, 84, 94, 136. Opposition to armed force against states, 151. John, 9. Raritan (ship), 285. Read, William B., 338. Reagan, J. H. Selected Postmaster-General (Confederacy), 209. Rector, Gov. of Arkansas. Reply to U. S. call<