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 a specific section of Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 1. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones). Search the whole document.

Found 266 total hits in 69 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
Missouri (Missouri, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
ustice persons charged with participation in the John Brown raid --see note, p. 320. At the era of secession the constitution had not only ceased to be a palladium for these rights of secession, but was hardly recognized to be binding at all. If, then, this instrument was to be relied upon by the slave States to protect them, it was only in the event that they could arm themselves with enough political power to enforce its provisions. So obvious had this become by 1819-20, when the State of Missouri was struggling for admission as a slave State, that the slave States at that time solemnly asserted their right to settle the unoccupied and unappropriated territory of the United States with their slave property, under the protection of its laws — a right which was as vehemently denied by the free States. So bitter and fierce was this contest, that its agitations shook the very foundations of American society. It was settled for a time by a compromise excluding slavery from the Unit
Ohio (United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
the father of his country, under whose guidance independence was achieved, and the rights and liberties of each State, it was hoped, perpetually established. She stood undismayed through the long night of the Revolution, breasting the storm of war and pouring out the blood of her sons like water on almost every battle-field, from the ramparts of Quebec to the sands of Georgia. By her own unaided efforts the northwestern territory was conquered, whereby the Mississippi, instead of the Ohio river, was recognized as the boundary of the United States by the treaty of peace. To secure harmony, and as an evidence of her estimate of the value of the union of the States, she ceded to all for their common benefit this magnificent region — an empire in itself. When the articles of confederation were shown to be inadequate to secure peace and tranquility at home and respect abroad, Virginia first moved to bring about a more perfect union. At her instance the first assemblage of com
Botetourt (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
, would she not have lost her honor with them? If the alternative were between such a loss and armed resistance, is it surprising that she preferred the latter? Preamble and resolution Offered in a large mass meeting of the people of Botetourt county, December 10th, 1860, by the Hon. John J. Allen, President of the Supreme court of Virginia, and adopted with but two dissenting voices. The people of Botetourt county, in general meeting assembled, believe it to be the duty of all the ciBotetourt county, in general meeting assembled, believe it to be the duty of all the citizens of the Commonwealth, in the present alarming condition of our country, to give some expression of their opinion upon the threatening aspect of public affairs. They deem it unnecessary and out of place to avow sentiments of loyalty to the constitution and devotion to the union of these States. A brief reference to the part the State has acted in the past will furnish the best evidence of the feelings of her sons in regard to the union of the States and the constitution, which is the sole
United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
When this Union was originally formed, the United States embraced too many degrees of latitude and by a compromise excluding slavery from the United States Territories north of a line 36° 30′ north xclude slavery from the territories of the United States, and they had the strength to do it, if ththe States, or slavery in places where the United States had exclusive jurisdiction, or in the Disties. So thought, too, the people of the Confederate States, and they did fight. They waged a war fone of her sons. She furnished to the Confederate States the father of his country, under whose gution being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whenever they shalr oppression? Not the whole people of the United States, for there could be no oppression of the wrage and patriotism of the people of the Confederate States will be found equal to any measures of dte our own welfare, the secession of the Confederate States has been marked by no aggression upon ot[12 more...]
Virginia (Virginia, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
mous northwestern ordinance, to which the old Virginia fathers were driven by their abhorrence of slre by the past. Indeed, an armed invasion of Virginia had been just made by John Brown, with the avf spirit also. She did not wish — certainly, Virginia did not desire it — if she could maintain hern J. Allen, President of the Supreme court of Virginia, and adopted with but two dissenting voices. ax the colonies without their consent, it was Virginia who, by the resolutions against the stamp actarted the first impulse to the Revolution. Virginia declared her independence before any of the cthe legislative hall. Under the leading of Virginia statesmen the Revolution of 1798 was brought nfederate States, cannot admit of question in Virginia. Our people in convention, by their act ofurt, in February, 1775, to the delegates from Virginia to the Continental Congress, That we desire nrights and insure the safety of the people of Virginia. And in the event of a change in our relat[3 more...]<
Mexico (Mexico, Mexico) (search for this): chapter 1.1
y the free States. So bitter and fierce was this contest, that its agitations shook the very foundations of American society. It was settled for a time by a compromise excluding slavery from the United States Territories north of a line 36° 30′ north latitude, and admitting it south of that line. Even this line left the South in a condition of hopeless inferiority, which was but little helped by the acquisition of a portion of Texas as a slave State. When the vast territory obtained from Mexico at the close of the war was organized, the Missouri compromise line was set aside, and the non-intervention principle was adopted, by which it became between the sections a mere question of the ability to colonize — a question in regard to which there could scarcely be a doubt, with the superior resources in wealth and population of the free States. It had become manifest that the South had no protection for its rights but the constitution, nor could it hope to avail itself of that protecti
Kentucky (Kentucky, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
veholders in politics; no fellowship with them in religion; no affiliation with them in society; no recognition of pro-slavery men, except as ruffians, outlaws and criminals. Again: we are determined to abolish slavery at all hazards. With such a history of the administration of the constitution by the party in power, there was no very pleasant outlook for the slaveholder in the future. Had he any hope from amendments? That no effort to save the Union should be spared, Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, introduced certain resolutions proposing amendments to the constitution, which would have saved the Union, and which received every Southern vote except the South Carolina senators, who had withdrawn. They proposed to adopt, in effect, the Missouri compromise line, to prohibit Congress from abolishing the slave trade between the States, or slavery in places where the United States had exclusive jurisdiction, or in the District of Columbia, without the consent of Maryland and of the slaveh
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
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 was no obstacle in their p
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
nts? That no effort to save the Union should be spared, Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, introduced certain resolutions proposing amendments to the constitution, which would have saved the Union, and which received every Southern vote except the South Carolina senators, who had withdrawn. They proposed to adopt, in effect, the Missouri compromise line, to prohibit Congress from abolishing the slave trade between the States, or slavery in places where the United States had exclusive jurisdiction, o of course, that they had deliberately made up their minds to refuse any negotiation. （Lunt's Origin of the War, p. 411). The adoption of Mr. Crittenden's resolutions, it was said by Mr. Douglass, would have saved every Southern State except South Carolina. Undoubtedly such would have been the effect of a general agreement upon these resolutions between the two sections. But did the Rebublicans desire it? It would seem not from the postscript to Mr. Chandler's letter to Governor Blair: Some
Maryland (Maryland, United States) (search for this): chapter 1.1
r. Crittenden, of Kentucky, introduced certain resolutions proposing amendments to the constitution, which would have saved the Union, and which received every Southern vote except the South Carolina senators, who had withdrawn. They proposed to adopt, in effect, the Missouri compromise line, to prohibit Congress from abolishing the slave trade between the States, or slavery in places where the United States had exclusive jurisdiction, or in the District of Columbia, without the consent of Maryland and of the slaveholders, and proposed a more effectual provision for the recovery of fugitive slaves. For these, a substitute was offered by Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, declaring, amongst other things, that the provisions of the constitution are ample for the preservation of the Union, and the resolutions of Mr. Crittenden were voted down, and the substitute adopted by a united vote of the Republicans. Says Lunt: The vote of the Republican members of the Senate was a blank denial of the
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...